The big bad in the Vietnam War

[Augustus]

Ba Chúc massacre - Wikipedia
So their "inherent badness" goes from "want to enslave half of the wolrd" to "oppress their own people"? How many people flee to the US from Mexico every year? How many people flee to Europe from Africa every year? Are they any different than any other thirdworld country? No.

Obviously their invasion wasn't a humanitarian intervention. It was a righteous counterattack after Cambodia has declared war and attacked them. Ba Chúc massacre

If you want to believe that the Soviet Union was the 'good guy' in spite of the colossal amounts of evidence to the contrary, I doubt there is much that can change your mind as it is not an opinion held on a rational basis.

 

[Stevicus]

If you want to believe that the Soviet Union was the 'good guy' in spite of the colossal amounts of evidence to the contrary, I doubt there is much that can change your mind as it is not an opinion held on a rational basis.

Perhaps a more objective view might be that there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in geopolitics. It's simply a matter of nations pursuing their own interests, even if they sometimes have to do "bad" things in the process.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Perhaps a more objective view might be that there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in geopolitics. It's simply a matter of nations pursuing their own interests, even if they sometimes have to do "bad" things in the process.

Maybe that demonstrates why we need to have a more serious discussion about global policy, global economy, and the like- no?

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps a more objective view might be that there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in geopolitics. It's simply a matter of nations pursuing their own interests, even if they sometimes have to do "bad" things in the process.

I actually started of by saying there were no good guys, although someone took a strong exception to this.

While what you say has a lot truth to it, and real life is rarely Hollywood good and evil, you can certainly get bad guys. I'd say Hitler was a bad guy, wouldn't you?

 

[Stevicus]

I actually started of by saying there were no good guys, although someone took a strong exception to this.

While what you say has a lot truth to it, and real life is rarely Hollywood good and evil, you can certainly get bad guys. I'd say Hitler was a bad guy, wouldn't you?

I would still consider it as a matter of cause and effect. Hitler's rise to power can be attributed to generations of German nationalism, coupled with defeat in WW1, Versailles, the crippling economic situation, and fears of the USSR which was growing more powerful.

I'm not about to try to psychoanalyze Hitler or the hold he seemed to have over his people. But it seemed apparent that his followers believed that Hitler was a "good guy" for Germany. It's all a matter of one's point of view.

Some might speculate whether the Nazis or the Communists ever would have come into power at all if the Western Allies had moderated their war aims during WW1. In Russia, after the fall of the Tsar but before the rise of the Bolsheviks, the Provisional Government was trying desperately to hang on and continue fighting in the war. The Western Allies were pressuring them, but so many Russians wanted out by that time. The sticky point was in the British and French refusal to declare that they would seek "peace without annexations or indemnities."

If they had truly been "good guys" and taken a more generous and gracious approach to the peace terms, then Germany and Russia might not have taken such a militant "screw you" attitude towards the West. That they end up with governments full of hotheads and raging madmen is not too surprising.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not about to try to psychoanalyze Hitler or the hold he seemed to have over his people. But it seemed apparent that his followers believed that Hitler was a "good guy" for Germany. It's all a matter of one's point of view.

While the rise of Hitler certainly owes a lot to the harsh conditions imposed on the after WW1, and that this would have made many Germans sympathetic to someone who could restore their wealth, power and pride, it still requires an extreme degree of relativism to avoid labelling Hitler as bad.

Most conquerers didn't want to wipe out or enslave entire races of people.

If they had truly been "good guys" and taken a more generous and gracious approach to the peace terms, then Germany and Russia might not have taken such a militant "screw you" attitude towards the West. That they end up with governments full of hotheads and raging madmen is not too surprising.

That's why I made a point of focusing on 'bad guys', as it is easier to label some leaders as bad than it is to claim one is 'good' given there are generally no angels out there.

 

[Stevicus]

While the rise of Hitler certainly owes a lot to the harsh conditions imposed on the after WW1, and that this would have made many Germans sympathetic to someone who could restore their wealth, power and pride, it still requires an extreme degree of relativism to avoid labelling Hitler as bad.

Most conquerers didn't want to wipe out or enslave entire races of people.


That's why I made a point of focusing on 'bad guys', as it is easier to label some leaders as bad than it is to claim one is 'good' given there are generally no angels out there.

Well, Hitler was bad, but I think we're getting off the point here. If we're talking about American foreign and military policy, specifically the question of whether we should deal with a situation by sending troops or finding more peaceful solutions, it's a bit more complicated than determining who is bad or good.

We really shouldn't pretend to be a bunch of gallant white knights going in to save people from some "bad guy." If there's a rational, legitimate national security interest involved, then it should be easily justifiable on that basis. Not just because we think Ho Chi Minh is a "bad guy." That's not a good enough reason to go to war.

 

[Augustus]

We really shouldn't pretend to be a bunch of gallant white knights going in to save people from some "bad guy." If there's a rational, legitimate national security interest involved, then it should be easily justifiable on that basis. Not just because we think Ho Chi Minh is a "bad guy." That's not a good enough reason to go to war.

I did start off by saying there were no good guys in the Vietnam War...

My argument wasn't America was good, it was that Uncle Ho was a product of the Comintern and thus a tool of Soviet Union.

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

I did start off by saying there were no good guys in the Vietnam War...

My argument wasn't America was good, it was that Uncle Ho was a product of the Comintern and thus a tool of Soviet Union.

Why don't you try to see it the other way around? The Soviet Union was a tool of Ho Chi Minh to liberate his people, as it was the only force in world willingly helping people from the colonies fighting against capitalist colonizers. HCM tried to approach the US, but the US refused to help innocent Vietnamese farmers, but instead supported evil French invaders.

 

[Augustus]

Why don't you try to see it the other way around? The Soviet Union was a tool of Ho Chi Minh to liberate his people, as it was the only force in world willingly helping people from the colonies fighting against capitalist colonizers.

Because he became a Comintern agent in the 1920s...

Read all about it if you want: http://www.tonthatthien.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1990-Was-Ho-Chi-Minh-A-Nationalist.pdf

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

Because he became a Comintern agent in the 1920s...

Read all about it if you want: http://www.tonthatthien.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1990-Was-Ho-Chi-Minh-A-Nationalist.pdf

Did you know that he tried to convince American delegation to help his people at the treaty of Versailles in 1919 to no success?
Ho Chi Minh - History Learning Site
Letter from Nguyen ai Quac [Ho Chi Minh] to Secretary of State Robert Lansing

 

[Augustus]

Did you know that he tried to convince American delegation to help his people at the treaty of Versailles in 1919 to no success?
Ho Chi Minh - History Learning Site
Letter from Nguyen ai Quac [Ho Chi Minh] to Secretary of State Robert Lansing

So on one side we have a letter, and on the other 4 decades of close alignment with the Soviet Union as part of his involvement in the Soviet funded Communist Party of Vietnam, the same organisation that implemented a totalitarian Stalinist system of governance modelled on the USSR after the war (although he died before that point).

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

So on one side we have a letter, and on the other 4 decades of close alignment with the Soviet Union as part of his involvement in the Soviet funded Communist Party of Vietnam, the same organisation that implemented a totalitarian Stalinist system of governance modelled on the USSR after the war (although he died before that point).

What side you are talking about? He begged leader of the free world to help him, but the free world walked away, so he had to get help from the unfree world to liberate his country. It's obvious that living in a communist, oppressive country is still better than living in a colony where foreign white men could put shackles and chains on your neck forcing you to work for 16 hours a day while they were busy to rape your wife and daughters, lawfully.

 

[Stevicus]

I did start off by saying there were no good guys in the Vietnam War...

My argument wasn't America was good, it was that Uncle Ho was a product of the Comintern and thus a tool of Soviet Union.

I'm not sure if that argument is relevant to anything. The Soviet Union was also our ally for a time.

 

[Augustus]

What side you are talking about? He begged leader of the free world to help him, but the free world walked away, so he had to get help from the unfree world to liberate his country.

Why, when millions of people around the world believed in Communist ideologies, are you so sure that someone who started at the socialist grassroots level then spent 4 decades in the upper echelons of Soviet funded international Communist movements and founded a party that unequivocally modelled itself on that of the Soviet Union wasn't actually a communist?

Do you believe that the Vietnamese Communist Party completely changed direction and suddenly became an actual communist party as soon as Ho died leading to its implementation of a Stalinist regime after the war?

If so, I've got some magic beans I'm willing to sell you at a very reasonable price.

It's obvious that living in a communist, oppressive country is still better than living in a colony where foreign white men could put shackles and chains on your neck forcing you to work for 16 hours a day while they were busy to rape your wife and daughters, lawfully.

Millions of people didn't agree with you. Some folk did better under one regime, some did better under the other.

So your argument is Ho was a fantastic chap because he sought to replace an oppressive French regime, with a totalitarian Vietnamese one and he had to do this because the leaders at Versailles didn't immediately remake the geopolitical world following the requests that had been sent to them in a letter written by a few random citizens.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure if that argument is relevant to anything. The Soviet Union was also our ally for a time.

But Churchill and Roosevelt weren't Soviet sponsored operatives for 4 decades and didn't found a party that implemented a brutally repressive totalitarian Stalinist regime as soon as possible.

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

Why, when millions of people around the world believed in Communist ideologies, are you so sure that someone who started at the socialist grassroots level then spent 4 decades in the upper echelons of Soviet funded international Communist movements and founded a party that unequivocally modelled itself on that of the Soviet Union wasn't actually a communist?

Do you believe that the Vietnamese Communist Party completely changed direction and suddenly became an actual communist party as soon as Ho died leading to its implementation of a Stalinist regime after the war?

If so, I've got some magic beans I'm willing to sell you at a very reasonable price.



Millions of people didn't agree with you. Some folk did better under one regime, some did better under the other.

So your argument is Ho was a fantastic chap because he sought to replace an oppressive French regime, with a totalitarian Vietnamese one and he had to do this because the leaders at Versailles didn't immediately remake the geopolitical world following the requests that had been sent to them in a letter written by a few random citizens.

There were only 2 chooses to liberate his country:
Capitalism: the ideology of the ones who attacked and enslaved his country, of the ones who refused to help innocent farmers from their enslavers, the ideology of exploiting the poor to enrich the white capitalists.
Communism: the ideology of equality and fairness, the ideology promised to liberate all colonies and enslaved people.
Tell me, which one would you choose?

 

[Stevicus]

But Churchill and Roosevelt weren't Soviet sponsored operatives for 4 decades and didn't found a party that implemented a brutally repressive totalitarian Stalinist regime as soon as possible.

But that's missing the point. That we were allies of the Soviet Union demonstrated that, at least when necessary, we could work with them and cooperate for mutual benefit - regardless of whatever kind of government they had.

There were some signs of thawing in the Cold War during the 50s. After Stalin died, Khrushchev denounced Stalin and began a period of De-Stalinization. The summit in Geneva in '55 or '56 seemed promising towards better relations. Granted, Khrushchev was a bit over the top, but the Soviets eventually ousted Khrushchev. Their government slowly reformed itself over time. Stalin was an extremely brutal anomaly (and ultimately denounced by his own party), but many of their other leaders tried to come off as more reasonable and reformed.

I would give Nixon some measure of credit in that he took a more pragmatic approach to the situation, such as being able to capitalize on the Sino-Soviet split. Nixon was an avowed anti-communist, but I think he was practical in some ways and saw the world situation on a deeper and more intelligent level than some of the other anti-communist blowhards, such as McCarthy, Goldwater, Reagan, J. Edgar Hoover, etc.

Still, it's interesting how the US pursued a friendlier relationship with Communist China, which was probably even more brutal than the Soviet regime, which was trying to reform and turn over a new leaf. We still saw the Soviets as the greater threat, even though they were softening up.

 

[Augustus]

But that's missing the point. That we were allies of the Soviet Union demonstrated that, at least when necessary, we could work with them and cooperate for mutual benefit - regardless of whatever kind of government they had.

My point was that Uncle Ho was not a 'good guy' because he was a classic product of the Comintern, which was demonstrated by his decades long service and the actions of the party he founded after the end of the Vietnam War.

I'm not sure what it has to do with the WW2 alliance, especially as Churchill drew up plans to attack the Soviets immediately after the war and gave them serous consideration. The only reason the alliance was possible was that the Nazis were considered even worse.

Unless you believe Ho was a very reluctant partner, the situations are completely different.

There were some signs of thawing in the Cold War during the 50s. After Stalin died, Khrushchev denounced Stalin and began a period of De-Stalinization. The summit in Geneva in '55 or '56 seemed promising towards better relations. Granted, Khrushchev was a bit over the top, but the Soviets eventually ousted Khrushchev. Their government slowly reformed itself over time. Stalin was an extremely brutal anomaly (and ultimately denounced by his own party), but many of their other leaders tried to come off as more reasonable and reformed.

I would give Nixon some measure of credit in that he took a more pragmatic approach to the situation, such as being able to capitalize on the Sino-Soviet split. Nixon was an avowed anti-communist, but I think he was practical in some ways and saw the world situation on a deeper and more intelligent level than some of the other anti-communist blowhards, such as McCarthy, Goldwater, Reagan, J. Edgar Hoover, etc.

Still, it's interesting how the US pursued a friendlier relationship with Communist China, which was probably even more brutal than the Soviet regime, which was trying to reform and turn over a new leaf. We still saw the Soviets as the greater threat, even though they were softening up.

It was never about morality though. The Soviets were massively more powerful, and had much more money and influence with international communism. After the Sino-Soviet split, weakening the Soviet bloc was the classic Realist move.

That they were less bad after Stalin, didn't make them particularly good though. Even after Khrushchev, Brezhnev invaded Czechoslovakia and maintained the right to invade any Warsaw Pact countries who were threatening to break away. He was also very repressive internally and stayed in power until the 1980s.

 

[Augustus]

There were only 2 chooses to liberate his country:
Capitalism: the ideology of the ones who attacked and enslaved his country, of the ones who refused to help innocent farmers from their enslavers, the ideology of exploiting the poor to enrich the white capitalists.
Communism: the ideology of equality and fairness, the ideology promised to liberate all colonies and enslaved people.
Tell me, which one would you choose?

Why only 2? Plenty of other countries decolonised without turning into Soviet-style totalitarian regimes.

Also anyone from the Comintern who survived the Stalinist purges should have learned that it certainly wasn't about 'equality and fairness'.

I understand why Communism was appealing to many people, especially intellectuals, but 'meaning well' doesn't change the reality of these regimes.

More bad has been done for 'moral' reasons than has been done for 'evil' reasons in human history. Osama bin Laden gave up a life of luxury to follow what he considered was a moral path at great personal sacrifice, doesn't make him a 'good guy' though.