Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

[HopkinsMedStudent]

OK so I got this idea from the other long thread about Vietnam. Many people posted that from the American perspective, the Vietnam War was a total waste because our objectives were not accomplished and we retreated, and the communists took over.

However I think if you look at it from teh perspective of the North Vietnamese or Vietnam in general, I think you can make a case it was also a wasted cause from their perspective over hte long term.

Take a look at how Vietnam has changed over the years. Of course it started out as a "glorious" communist revolution that was supposed to be tremendously beneficial to the people. Ho Chi Minh wasnt fighting for independence ALONE, he wanted a communist state, a "true believer" in the purest sense of the word.

But as in other communist nations, the dream died a slow death. Sure, Vietnam is still technically communist in political structure, but from an economic standpoint they are much closer to free market capitalism than they are communism.

After the war in Vietnam, the economy tanked under central control. Inflation skyrocketed, and the GDP of Vietnam sank to historical lows. The situation only improved after the government started instituting free market reforms (just like in China, whose economy is steadily progressing away from Communist ideology and closer to free market ideals).

Over the long term, Vietnam will resemble America much moreso than the communist haven that Ho Chi Minh wanted. I believe Ho would be very disappointed in the way Vietnam is moving.

Given that, I think over the long term the Vietnam War will be seen as a lost cause by BOTH sides, not just the americans.

In terms of the battle over ideals, I believe that the vision of free market economics has already proven superior to communist central planning, and that over the long term, democratic governments will beat out totalitarian states. North Vietnam/Communism is on the "wrong" side of both of these battles, making their "victory" over the Americans pyrrhic over the long term.

 

[crimresearch]

You might want to do a little more digging into the the factors that led Uncle Ho to power...starting with the fact that he predated Mao.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0823874.html

If there had actually ever been a country of North Vietnam, or a Communist revoluton, that would be one thing..but those were propaganda strawmen created by outsiders.

Long before that, there was one country, colonized by France, then Japan, and then France again.

And it took them decades to get their independence.

 

[The Fool]

Over the long term, Vietnam will resemble America much moreso than the communist haven that Ho Chi Minh wanted. I believe Ho would be very disappointed in the way Vietnam is moving.

Ho had one overpowering drive. An independent and unified Vietman.. I think he would have danced with any devil necessary to achieve this outcome. I can't imagine Ho being particularly concerned with the government structure, he was a great admirer of the freedoms proclaimed in the American declaration of independence and initially tried to gather american support to free Vietnam from french colonialism.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

Ho had one overpowering drive. An independent and unified Vietman..

To what end????? There was tremendous environmental damage and two million people died before the fall of Saigon. After the fall many people were singled out for retribution and many people lost their property and many of their rights. Who really cares what Ho did or did not want?

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

To what end????? There was tremendous environmental damage and two million people died before the fall of Saigon. After the fall many people were singled out for retribution and many people lost their property and many of their rights. Who really cares what Ho did or did not want?

and what would have been too much of a price to pay for American unification randfan? The Civil war was very damaging.

 

[shecky]

Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

To what end????? There was tremendous environmental damage and two million people died before the fall of Saigon. After the fall many people were singled out for retribution and many people lost their property and many of their rights. Who really cares what Ho did or did not want?

I wonder how many wars would be averted if the consequences to environment and population could be foretold? Wars often become "win at all costs" affairs.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

and what would have been too much of a price to pay for American unification randfan? The Civil war was very damaging.

Do you really believe that the Civil war was only about unification? I know "united we stand...blah blah". That's rhetoric and I don't support it. I for one believe in the right of states to secede if the Federal government is oppressing the rights of citizens.

The United States federal government had a responsibility to the minorities in the Southern United States. It wasn't up to the South to seceded and deprive Blacks of their right to freedom. Absent that I would absolutely support the South's right to secede and I would absolutely say that unification was not justified. I hope that was clear.

On the other hand North Vietnam wanted to take away the rights of those in the South and enforce their values on everyone.

I think you have your comparisons backassward.

 

[jay gw]

Vietnamese refugees still feel betrayed by American pull-out

Thirty years ago, Saigon fell and the long effort, first by the French, and then by the Americans, to stop the North Vietnamese communists, was over.

Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City and Vietnam is one country.

But many of those who fled South Vietnam when the forces of the North won, still feel that the American pull-out, which came in stages up to 1975, was a betrayal of millions of people who wanted to be free.

One of them is Quynh Dao, who's a member of the Australian-Vietnam Human Rights Committee, and I asked her this afternoon if she was calling for a revision of the history of what happened in 1975.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1356769.htm

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

I wonder how many wars would be averted if the consequences to environment and population could be foretold? Wars often become "win at all costs" affairs.

Absolutely agreed. No argument. I'm just saying that we should not get all misty eyed over uncle Ho's vision of a United Vietnam. It was Ho who chose from the begining to fight as many of hs own people as necassary to win.

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

On the other hand North Vietnam wanted to take away the rights of those in the South and enforce their values on everyone.

what rights are you thinking about?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

what rights are you thinking about?

The right to keep one's possessions, business, property. The right to a democracy and freedom.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

To what end????? There was tremendous environmental damage and two million people died before the fall of Saigon. After the fall many people were singled out for retribution and many people lost their property and many of their rights. Who really cares what Ho did or did not want?

I think you said you had read Sheehan. The imperative for the Vietnamese was independence and nationalism. That was the drive for the past 1,000 years (IIRC) of so of being a neighbour of China. You get invaded, you fight the invader, to the bitter end, till they are gone.

Ho asked the Americans, who had the reputation of being the most progressive country in the world, for help in gaining independence from France, who, for some lunatic reason, thought that now that they had fought off the Nazi occupation, would return to their own imperialistic ways in 'their' colonies.

The American knocked him back, the USSR didn't.

The imperative from the start was not Communism, but Nationalism.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

The right to keep one's possessions, business, property. The right to a democracy and freedom.

That would include getting rid of the French, who were aided by the US in their quest to stay as the Colonial masters of Vietnam. The US clearly sided against the independence movement, from the start, by making this choice. If you look at the photographs from the era, the French are using US military equipment.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

Ho had one overpowering drive. An independent and unified Vietman..

Then why did he fight South Vietnam? The US was interfering because it was defending South Vietnam. If he had worked for a peaceful solution, he could have had what you say he wanted (and the US would have been more willing to oppose Chinese interference).

and what would have been too much of a price to pay for American unification randfan?

One life is too many.

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

The right to keep one's possessions, business, property. The right to a democracy and freedom.

I'll not argue that there was a great deal of arbitrary confiscation of the property of the losers at the end of the war, thats pretty common in wars, but I find it hard to swallow any claim that the south vietnamese juntas that we fought so long and hard to prop up had anything to do with democracy and freedom.

My personal recollection of the South vietnamese government officials at the local level was of a bunch of petty thugs, and criminals who were very fond of executions without charge or trial as a form of justice.

 

[jay gw]

If you look at the photographs from the era, the French are using US military equipment.

What photographs?

 

[Art Vandelay]

One of them is Quynh Dao, who's a member of the Australian-Vietnam Human Rights Committee, and I asked her this afternoon if she was calling for a revision of the history of what happened in 1975.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1356769.htm

If you're quoting, you should make that more clear. If you're not quoting, you should know it's spelled "whose".

 

[shecky]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

The United States federal government had a responsibility to the minorities in the Southern United States. It wasn't up to the South to seceded and deprive Blacks of their right to freedom. Absent that I would absolutely support the South's right to secede and I would absolutely say that unification was not justified. I hope that was clear.

ISTR that slave states would have been able to stay slave states had they not seceded. Lincoln seemed to accept slavery there and wouldn't have made a issue of it. However, i'm not really clear why the North was so vehemently opposed to secession. Perhaps the reaction to the Confederacy seizing federal properties simply escalated? And aggressions at Ft Sumter demanding a response?

In any event, I'm not sure on the South's right to secede directly involving slavery.

On the other hand North Vietnam wanted to take away the rights of those in the South and enforce their values on everyone.

I have to think this was a case where nationalism had more appeal than political ideology. Cetainly South Vietnam had a sigificant population sympathetic to the idea of a unified Vietnam, regardless of political ideology?

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Vietnam outcome from the Vietnamese perspective

Then why did he fight South Vietnam? The US was interfering because it was defending South Vietnam. If he had worked for a peaceful solution, he could have had what you say he wanted (and the US would have been more willing to oppose Chinese interference).

One life is too many.

Before the partition into north and south, there was peaceful plan. There would be a vote to unify the north and south, and everyone would pack up and go home. The 'polls' told everyone the North would win easily. So the peaceful solution was rejected by the South. The "South" as such, had only existed for a few years. It was not as if it had any sort of history or legitimacy.

 

[peptoabysmal]

OK so I got this idea from the other long thread about Vietnam. Many people posted that from the American perspective, the Vietnam War was a total waste because our objectives were not accomplished and we retreated, and the communists took over.

However I think if you look at it from teh perspective of the North Vietnamese or Vietnam in general, I think you can make a case it was also a wasted cause from their perspective over hte long term.

Take a look at how Vietnam has changed over the years. Of course it started out as a "glorious" communist revolution that was supposed to be tremendously beneficial to the people. Ho Chi Minh wasnt fighting for independence ALONE, he wanted a communist state, a "true believer" in the purest sense of the word.

But as in other communist nations, the dream died a slow death. Sure, Vietnam is still technically communist in political structure, but from an economic standpoint they are much closer to free market capitalism than they are communism.

After the war in Vietnam, the economy tanked under central control. Inflation skyrocketed, and the GDP of Vietnam sank to historical lows. The situation only improved after the government started instituting free market reforms (just like in China, whose economy is steadily progressing away from Communist ideology and closer to free market ideals).

Over the long term, Vietnam will resemble America much moreso than the communist haven that Ho Chi Minh wanted. I believe Ho would be very disappointed in the way Vietnam is moving.

Given that, I think over the long term the Vietnam War will be seen as a lost cause by BOTH sides, not just the americans.

In terms of the battle over ideals, I believe that the vision of free market economics has already proven superior to communist central planning, and that over the long term, democratic governments will beat out totalitarian states. North Vietnam/Communism is on the "wrong" side of both of these battles, making their "victory" over the Americans pyrrhic over the long term.

Vietnam was lost to communism, but the momentum of communism was broken. I think the main objective was reached.

If Vietnam prospers now, it will certainly not be due to anything America has done. After the fall of Saigon, we did everything we could to starve them out of existance. We couldn't sign sanctions fast enough.