The big bad in the Vietnam War

[Kamen Rider Build]

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.

And many of them were decolonised only because Vietnam defeated the French and shoke the colony system to its core. Without Vietnam's victory, half of the world would have been chained and caged even nowadays.

Meaning well or not doesn't matter. Vietnam has been liberated after 100 years of unsuccessful fighting. And the US tried to undo that achievement by dividing the country.

 

[Augustus]

And many of them were decolonised only because Vietnam defeated the French and shoke the colony system to its core. Without Vietnam's victory, half of the world would have been chained and caged even nowadays.

Complete and utter nonsense. The anti-colonial movement started well before this and had significant momentum before Vietnam started fighting the French.

In SE Asia, Japan was for more important as they had shown the Europeans could be defeated.

It wasn't even the first in SE Asia to declare independence, let alone some singularly important act of resistance that inspired the entire world to do things nobody thought were imaginable.

Indonesia managed to declare independence before the Vietnamese without turning their country into either a Soviet or US puppet which meant they got much more liberation than that of a client state. This is somewhat problematic for your line of argumentation about the saintly Ho having 'no choice'.

Meaning well or not doesn't matter. Vietnam has been liberated after 100 years of unsuccessful fighting. And the US tried to undo that achievement by dividing the country.

There were plenty of Vietnamese who weren't too happy about the prospects of a living in a Soviet puppet state under a Stalinist system of government, and with very good reason. The problem with violent revolutions is that they tend to bring the most extreme elements into power.

The purpose of removing one oppressive regime is not to install another one right after.

If Bob has a dog which he kicks 100 times a day, then Sam rescues the abused dog but starts to kick it 99 times a day, should Sam be hailed as a hero and a 'good guy'?

Is your argument that they were not brutally oppressive and hostile to Vietnamese culture? Or that even if they were brutally oppressive and hostile to Vietnamese culture, it doesn't matter as it is better to be brutally oppressed by people who look similar to you (and their Soviet paymasters), rather than people who look different to you?

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I believe he was acting in what he thought were the best interests of his country. Obviously, the Vietnamese wanted freedom from the French and other foreign powers (including the US), and we didn't really give Ho any other choice but to seek out allies elsewhere.

As for what it has to do with the WW2 alliance, the whole justification behind the Cold War and interventions like Vietnam was rooted in the US perception that communists are evil and can't be reasoned with or negotiated with. Yet our alliance with the Soviet Union (and later, Communist China) proved that they were reasonable and could be negotiated with. Ho was also a US ally during WW2.

Patton wanted to attack the USSR, and MacArthur wanted to attack Red China. Both were overruled and fired for taking those positions. If the US government really thought they were as bad as all that, then they would have (and should have) attacked when they had the golden opportunity to do so.

The fact that they didn't demonstrates that either the US leadership didn't think commies were as bad as the anti-communist propaganda was saying, or they deliberately wanted to set America up for more wars in the future. This could possibly indicate that the entire Cold War was nothing more than geopolitical theater.

It was never about morality though. The Soviets were massively more powerful, and had much more money and influence with international communism.

Not too shabby for a supposedly "failed state," wouldn't you say? Especially after all the untold death and destruction they endured in WW1, the Russian Civil War, and WW2. The fact that they were able to recover so quickly and still be a formidable opponent in the Cold War says something about their ingenuity, strength, and resourcefulness. In contrast, the US was virtually untouched by either WW1 or WW2, yet they still beat us into outer space and surpassed our military in size and strength.

After the Sino-Soviet split, weakening the Soviet bloc was the classic Realist move.

Yes, it was the right play for the West to make. The Soviet hold over Eastern Europe was clearly weakening, and they also had the same Tsarist era problem of managing a sprawling multi-national empire of numerous ethnicities.

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.

Brezhnev was not as bad as Stalin or Khrushchev. For one thing, his power was somewhat limited compared to Stalin's unquestioned absolute rule. Brezhnev took a more low key approach and left most people alone as long as they kept their mouths shut and didn't rock any boats. He wasn't good by any standard, but just as with any world leader, he may have felt that it was his duty to act in the best interests of his country.

It was likely the same with Ho. He apparently believed that it was better for his country that it be independent and free of imperialist domination. I don't believe he was some sort of automaton or puppet of Moscow, but they had to get their training and weapons from somewhere. But they had to deal with the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, then the Americans and other Allied nations.

I guess the question is: Even if Ho was an agent of Moscow and truly a bad guy, does that still necessitate or justify US interference in what was essentially a civil war in another country?

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

Complete and utter nonsense. The anti-colonial movement started well before this and had significant momentum before Vietnam started fighting the French.

In SE Asia, Japan was for more important as they had shown the Europeans could be defeated.

It wasn't even the first in SE Asia to declare independence, let alone some singularly important act of resistance that inspired the entire world to do things nobody thought were imaginable.

Indonesia managed to declare independence before the Vietnamese without turning their country into either a Soviet or US puppet which meant they got much more liberation than that of a client state. This is somewhat problematic for your line of argumentation about the saintly Ho having 'no choice'.



There were plenty of Vietnamese who weren't too happy about the prospects of a living in a Soviet puppet state under a Stalinist system of government, and with very good reason. The problem with violent revolutions is that they tend to bring the most extreme elements into power.

The purpose of removing one oppressive regime is not to install another one right after.

If Bob has a dog which he kicks 100 times a day, then Sam rescues the abused dog but starts to kick it 99 times a day, should Sam be hailed as a hero and a 'good guy'?

Is your argument that they were not brutally oppressive and hostile to Vietnamese culture? Or that even if they were brutally oppressive and hostile to Vietnamese culture, it doesn't matter as it is better to be brutally oppressed by people who look similar to you (and their Soviet paymasters), rather than people who look different to you?

Your analogy is flawed. It should be this "If Bob has a dog which he kicks 100 times a day, then Sam rescues it, treats it as a fellow human, teaches it how to read and writes, should Sam be hailed as a hero and a 'good guy'?" Because that was basically how Vietnam was, enslaved people in the colony were literally and legally treated as animals, chained, caged by white men.

• Before the colonization: People were king's properties, they can be arrested and killed by the king for no reason. They had NO human right at all.
  
• In the colonization: People were animals, they were forced to work to death, they can be killed or raped legally. Their country was dominated by foreign evil invaders. They had NO human right at all.
  
• In the communism: People are humans with many human rights (although some are still absent). They can learn and work as a free man, not as a slave or an animal. They can join the government and climb to high positions, becoming rulers and leaders of their own country.

Tell me how that is not WAY WAY better?

 

[Augustus]

Before the colonization: People were king's properties, they can be arrested and killed by the king for no reason. They had NO human right at all.

Ditto after communism, except replace 'king' with 'The Party'

In the colonization: People were animals, they were forced to work to death, they can be killed or raped legally. Their country was dominated by foreign evil invaders. They had NO human right at all.

Have you heard of forced labour, 'reeducation camps', show trials etc.?

In the communism: People are humans with many human rights (although some are still absent). They can learn and work as a free man, not as a slave or an animal. They can join the government and climb to high positions, becoming rulers and leaders of their own country.

As a free man? Do you believe living in Mao's China, or Stalin's USSR was 'freedom' too?

They had the right to learn how to be good members of the Party. They had the right to work in whatever job they are assigned without complaint. They had the right to think whatever they liked, as long as what they liked was Communist orthodoxy. They had the right to have every detail of their life spied upon by the state. They had the right to spy on their neighbours, kids, parents, etc. to make sure they weren't 'reactionary traitors'. They had the right to abandon their religious and cultural heritage and force others to do likewise. They had the right to destroy pre-revolutionary literature, art and music. If they joined the army, they had the right to kill anyone who wanted to leave the 'Worker's Paradise' or to torture regime enemies. Farmers and fishermen had the right to sell their produce to the state for a pittance. They had the right to donate their share of the crops to The Party even if it meant near starvation. The bourgeoisie had the right to be forcibly 'reeducated' or perhaps killed simply because of who they were born. Members of the traditional power structure, including low level villagers had the right to be shot in the head, or forcibly 'reeducated' if they were lucky. Most people, excepting those high enough in The Party, had the right to live in poverty. People who tried to ease their hardship via the black market had the right to be hanged.

You have a fantasy land view of life in communist regimes, which killed somewhere between 50-100+ million of their own citizens worldwide. While many people used to make such arguments, all but the most rabid ideologues abandoned such nonsense when the histories of such nations became fully known after the collapse of communism.

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

Ditto after communism, except replace 'king' with 'The Party'



Have you heard of forced labour, 'reeducation camps', show trials etc.?



As a free man? Do you believe living in Mao's China, or Stalin's USSR was 'freedom' too?

They had the right to learn how to be good members of the Party. They had the right to work in whatever job they are assigned without complaint. They had the right to think whatever they liked, as long as what they liked was Communist orthodoxy. They had the right to have every detail of their life spied upon by the state. They had the right to spy on their neighbours, kids, parents, etc. to make sure they weren't 'reactionary traitors'. They had the right to abandon their religious and cultural heritage and force others to do likewise. They had the right to destroy pre-revolutionary literature, art and music. If they joined the army, they had the right to kill anyone who wanted to leave the 'Worker's Paradise' or to torture regime enemies. Farmers and fishermen had the right to sell their produce to the state for a pittance. They had the right to donate their share of the crops to The Party even if it meant near starvation. The bourgeoisie had the right to be forcibly 'reeducated' or perhaps killed simply because of who they were born. Members of the traditional power structure, including low level villagers had the right to be shot in the head, or forcibly 'reeducated' if they were lucky. Most people, excepting those high enough in The Party, had the right to live in poverty. People who tried to ease their hardship via the black market had the right to be hanged.

You have a fantasy land view of life in communist regimes, which killed somewhere between 50-100+ million of their own citizens worldwide. While many people used to make such arguments, all but the most rabid ideologues abandoned such nonsense when the histories of such nations became fully known after the collapse of communism.

No, I believe in a Vietnam like this:

Do you think these people are suffering anything you said? Do you believe these people are not free men?

 

[Augustus]

No, I believe in a Vietnam like this:

So the one that emerged after they abandoned Soviet communism? Not sure how that bolster's your argument, but each to their own I suppose...

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

So the one that emerged after they abandoned Soviet communism? Not sure how that bolster's your argument, but each to their own I suppose...

That proved that Communism or Soviet are merely tools for the independence of Vietnam. This would have been what happened in Vietnam in 1956 if the US had not brought war to the country.

 

[Augustus]

That proved that Communism or Soviet are merely tools for the independence of Vietnam. This would have been what happened in Vietnam in 1956 if the US had not brought war to the country.

That's some very interesting 'logic'.

Communists who were implementing communist policies in the North before US involvement, during the war, and after the war weren't actually communists but advocated a 1 party state with a mixed economy and substantial private sector.

So not only have you denied that Communism was highly oppressive, you've also argued that communist revolutionaries weren't actually communists despite following Soviet communist orthodoxy for decades after defeating the French and creating a communist country ruled by a Stalinist dictatorship.

When reforms eventually came, they mirrored those of other communist regimes due that were trying to avoid economic collapse. Were Soviet reforms 'proof' that in 1917 that Lenin was only using Bolshevism to overthrow the monarchy and really favoured a completely different political ideology and system of government?

 

[Kamen Rider Build]

That's some very interesting 'logic'.

Communists who were implementing communist policies in the North before US involvement, during the war, and after the war weren't actually communists but advocated a 1 party state with a mixed economy and substantial private sector.

So not only have you denied that Communism was highly oppressive, you've also argued that communist revolutionaries weren't actually communists despite following Soviet communist orthodoxy for decades after defeating the French and creating a communist country ruled by a Stalinist dictatorship.

When reforms eventually came, they mirrored those of other communist regimes due that were trying to avoid economic collapse. Were Soviet reforms 'proof' that in 1917 that Lenin was only using Bolshevism to overthrow the monarchy and really favoured a completely different political ideology and system of government?

Why don't you look at China? Without US obstructing since 1970s, they became the second greatest, second richest and second most powerful country in the world after a mere 30 years. Apply that to Vietnam, a much friendlier, way less aggressive one, in 1956 and guess the result.

 

[Augustus]

Why don't you look at China? Without US obstructing since 1970s, they became the second greatest, second richest and second most powerful country in the world after a mere 30 years. Apply that to Vietnam, a much friendlier, way less aggressive one, in 1956 and guess the result.

Your argument (although you might not be aware you are making it seeing as you seem to think it was something to do with America): when countries move away from Soviet/Maoist Communism they do much better. We agree on that.

The problem: Your 'good guy' created a Soviet style communist state because he was a Soviet style Communist, rather than someone who favoured the completely different economic and social systems that enabled China and Vietnam to make significant progress in more recent years.

Every time you mention countries who improved after ditching communism you refute your own arguments (although you don't seem to realise this).