Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 84

Thread: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

  1. #61

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    South Vietnam carried out more executions,
    *Sigh.*

    No. Not at all in the least. Even factoring in the fact that not all of those were strictly illegitimate, the statistics for the Communists were never pretty, even just looking at the duration they were in power in a divided Vietnam, dealing with the South. Now factor in the fact that it's been close to forty years and they haven't changed.

    Part of the reason might be because the North and its' puppets in the South weren't all that big on actual trials or properly documenting their executions while the South was under some obligation to do so, but I fail to see how that is even remotely a defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    rigged more elections,
    Because they bothered/were pressed to holding more elections than the North ever even pretended to (and yes, the North was guilty of horrible amounts of voter fraud and intimidation on its' own turf in the leadup to the thrown out elections, it's just that few people ever cover it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    had higher corruption,
    Ehhhhhhhh....

    *Measures in hands* Probably, if we're just talking about the usual, more veneal corruption (like skimming money off the top). But overall, I flatly disagree. Tyranny and totalitarianism are corruptions unto themselves, and even factoring in the numerous ways the Southern government was a petty tyranny and was corrupt I find it hard to grade them worse than the North was.

    Especially now, since the legal descendent of the Northern dictatorship has become at least as venial and corrupt as the South ever was, but without losing that much of its' former brutality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    and was a weaker and overall more brutal government, than North Vietnam ever was.
    Weaker? Absolutely. More brutal overall? Absolutely Not. The Viet Minh and Cong were absolutely atrocious both in the South and the "near abroad", as well as at home in the North. This is blindingly obvious if you ever look at what happened when they won, when they promptly killed more civilians in a few years than the South ever did in its' entire existence (even if we pre-date it to the establishment of a Viet government by the French). When we factor in the border conflicts and how both sides abetted their parties in Laos and Cambodia, that number just gets more and more atrocious, and the ratio gets more and more in favor of the South (as much as I despise admitting it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    However, North Vietnam was an army with a country, and carried out their share of bloodshed towards innocents.
    Understatement of the year. These are the people who trained the effing Khmer Rouge, and who upon deposing the KR and occupying the country proceeded to withhold crucial food shipments and confiscate what was left in a starving country. Keep in mind that was just one of their more *tangential* crimes. Their behavior in the North and South constitutes multiple counts of mass murder, mass torture, war rape, use of all of the above as weapons of war, political oppression, ethnic cleaning-slash-genocide (depending on who you l listen to).

    The South was never, Ever angelic. But this is like claiming the South Koreans were the worse Korean government in the Korean War. And this looks like a poor, transparent attempt to come across as nuanced or "balanced" and thus accurate. It doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    At least North Vietnam didn't carpetbomb the South, or the USA, for that matter.
    No, they just waged cruel and total war on their supposed countrymen for decades, in a thoroughly nasty campaign where they were the major parties ripping up the countryside, willfully ruining food sources (at least up until the deployment of the chemical agents), and killing anybody and everybody who did not conform in a manner that wouldn't be unfamiliar to those that lived in the Thirty Year's War.

    I'm pretty sure that compared to that, carpet bombing looks absolutely saintly and limited. I know if I were a poor German peasant, I'd much rather have the USAAF and RAF rain bombs on my head than I would deal with the hordes of illiterate, rampaging thugs going up and down the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    Neither side was good, but South Vietnam with American backing was far worse.
    Which only proves how little many, many people understand the current Vietnamese regime, or the history of the Indochinese Wars. I am sorry, Do your research again.

  2. #62

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Duplicate post, please delete. I would if I could.
    Last edited by Turtler; March 01, 2013 at 08:31 PM.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Duplicate post, please delete. I have no idea how this spat out so many copies, so my apologies.
    Last edited by Turtler; March 01, 2013 at 08:32 PM.

  4. #64
    Dave Strider's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    17,465

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    It should be mentioned that I, as a Socialist, do NOT support North Vietnam's current government, nor its Wartime one.

    South Vietnam, however...theirs makes me cringe.

    North Vietnam did what they did in the name of forging what they believed to be a better life for themselves. South Vietnam did what they did in the name of the Catholic God, and in the name of denying 'freedom' to the North.

    Again, both sides committed horrible things.
    when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
    there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
    yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
    but the union makes us strong.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    It should be mentioned that I, as a Socialist, do NOT support North Vietnam's current government, nor its Wartime one.

    South Vietnam, however...theirs makes me cringe.
    And it should be mentioned that I, as a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative, a Liberal, a Capitalist, and a *human Being* do not and never have condoned South Vietnam's government. As a phenomenally corrupt, oppressive, and illegitimate entity it deserves to be condemned for its' crimes, and had the roles been reversed I would condemn it as furiously as I condemn the North and its' allies. Just like I have no recourse and no hesitation in damning Franco, the El Salvadorian military dictatorship, Vichy, the Indonesian regime(s), or anybody else. The same crimes deserve the same punishment.

    And your parsing of the matter as though it matters does not merely make me cringe. It makes me sickened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    North Vietnam did what they did in the name of forging what they believed to be a better life for themselves. South Vietnam did what they did in the name of the Catholic God, and in the name of denying 'freedom' to the North.

    Again, both sides committed horrible things.
    To be honest, rhetoric like this makes me blanch, because it is illegitimate, dubious, intellectually vapid, and above all else makes multiple insulting assumptions on many, many levels.

    For one, what were the South Vietnamese democrats and liberals? Chopped meat (well, ok, given the Communists and the regime.....)? Are we supposed to believe that they didn't attempt to forge a better life for themselves when they chose to oppose the Communist coup first and then focus pressure on the parade of dictatorships? Are we supposed to believe they and their potential- as we have seen come to fruition since then in South Korea and Taiwan- deserve no recognition after what they suffered? Heck, going beyond the democrats and republicans, are we supposed to believe that the various militias that took up arms in protect themselves from Hanoi's decision to unleash the dogs of war (in one of the most monumentally stupid actions of the entire sorry Indochinese Conflicts period since it was barbaric and stupid on a purely pragmatic level) on them were not trying to make a better life for themselves?

    Secondly, what did the unleashing of paramilitaries just prior to the election by the North have to do with making a better country or better lives than themselves? All it did was kill a tens of thousands and cost the North and the Communists legitimacy in an election they would have won just by standing there and looking pretty. What did the blatant negotiations in bad faith with *every single party* from the French to the US to the RVN to their own *Chinese Allies* have to do with making a better Vietnam or better lives than themselves?

    Using the candard of "they did it in the name of forging what they believed to be a better life for themselves" as a justification or excuse is something that should never, ever be done. It tells us nothing, it changes nothing, and once used it can be used to white wash any atrocity, from that of the Communists, that of the Anti-Communists, from the North, South, Khmer Rouge, Cambodian royalists, Westerners, Franco, the Spanish Republic, Mussolini, or what have you.

    And it is more often than not used as a crutch to excuse away the failures to bring even that. Have you ever tried to visit the Tonkin Delta and Hanoi? Nearly four decades have passed, and to this day Vietnam remains fragmented precisely because the Communist regime failed to bring about that better life for anyone, and has maintained power by becoming even more plutocratic than Diem etc. al. and by exploiting and sewing discontent into the nation they promised to unify and make whole. This isn't the sort of "He's a Northerner/Southerner, I Hate You Instantly" thing, but it is the sort of regional hatred that has been used and abused to a very malevolent end.

    Now, am I supposed to believe that such rhetoric excuses that, whether done on behalf of the glorious totalitarian socialist utopia or on behalf of a "Catholic God" like Franco, the Falange, the Carlists (who started long before the others) and the other affiliated thugs did in Spain? No. Merely refusing to reject such sickening logic is a sin.

    Thirdly, how did the South deny freedom to the North? It wasn't their death squads roaming around in the North after the French left. It wasn't their corrupt plutocrats/party officials stuffing the ballot boxes and rampaging the country. It wasn't the South that conscripted Northerners in their hundreds of thousands to fight and die. The sheer fact you have the gall to write such a sentence on here betrays a startling lack of intellectual honestly and rigor. You say how you do not condone the Northern government (But only not during Wartime!) but your rhetoric betrays something else.

    And finally, I note you have dropped all note of who was responsible for what, and who killed how many people and was responsible for the most heinous war crimes in that sick, sorry episode of history. I suspect this is because you know the facts would tell against you, both during the conflicts and after it.

    I see no shame whatsoever in not punches against a right wing dictatorship like what existed in the South, and the main reason I support it is the same reason I support the Popular Front and its' heirs over Franco and the other Nationalists: the former had the far better chance of turning a bad situation into a true free state over their opponents. This does not exempt them from my condemnation as the murdering thugs they were, and if my hopes failed I would be the first to admit I was wrong and call for their heads. Especially after forty years have passed and they have failed to do anything but solidify the divisions in the country.

    Once you're done cringing about the South Vietnamese dictatorships (and I can understand you taking your time, there is legitimately a LOT to cringe at, if not outright puke or yell at) , please begin cringing at your kid-gloves parsing of a dictatorship and its' crimes and your intellectual malpractice at getting the numbers wrong. And once you're done with that, please go back to and start doing research on the subject.

    Focusing on the political slant of a dictatorship and what it purported to preach in and of itself does nothing and deserves nothing. Using that as a defense or excuse of its' atrocities merely makes you party to its' propaganda and by extension its' crimes, and unlike the State Department or government we have no greater interests or larger goals to protect and so have no excuse.
    Last edited by Turtler; March 01, 2013 at 09:20 PM.

  6. #66
    Dave Strider's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    17,465

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    The only reason I didn't complain about the North more is that you're doing a completely suitable job of doing that for me. You're pointing out exactly what I don't like about them, in about ten times as much exquisite detail than I would ever be able to manage, given my current physical state. I'll make what I intended to say completely clear.

    There are no good sides in Vietnam. There never have been, there likely never will be. Not even the Colonial French were good in my eyes, because they spread the putrid stench of Catholicism into a land that, at the time, was lucky enough not to be tainted by such Religious filth. Not on such a scale, at least.

    It was my understanding that the Communists were projected to take power, and the Southern government came into being via a coup that sent the Communists packing into the North. Now I could be hallucinating, or perhaps confusing this with another incident, because let me tell you, I'm certainly too tired to do any proper research on the matter.

    Because of the tendency of the United States to immediately condemn Communism, by its lonesome, for any and all crimes perpetrated during the Vietnam war, whilst most of the time defending the South for all of its equally horrid crimes, I figured I might as well try and even the balance a bit, as it were. Whatever I have to say about the North has, in essence, already been said.
    when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
    there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
    yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
    but the union makes us strong.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    I do know the USA were not saints, but the whole (upper cased)Communist thing is just terrible. Was there any other way to stop it from spreading without invading? To those against the Vietnam war, I get your case and understand the bad things the US did, but what to do when many more will be killed by North Vietnamese bayonets? Why didn't those who were criticizing the US for its crimes equally condemn the North Vietnamese for far greater crimes? Was there any solution at all? The world really is without refuge.

  8. #68
    Dave Strider's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    17,465

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Essentially, your second-to-last sentence contains the answer. There is never a solution to war. Especially when it is a hair-trigger potential global conflict that is flaring up in one small area. Atrocities were bound to happen, and were bound to be caused by both sides.
    when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
    there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
    yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
    but the union makes us strong.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    The only reason I didn't complain about the North more is that you're doing a completely suitable job of doing that for me. You're pointing out exactly what I don't like about them, in about ten times as much exquisite detail than I would ever be able to manage, given my current physical state. I'll make what I intended to say completely clear.
    Very well, my apologies if that is the case, but you should know that being silent is something of a berserk button for me (for precisely the same reason anybody here who wants to say that the South deserves a pass for the lovely serial oppression/murders/imprisonments/discrimination it inflicted on the Montagnards, on any and every dissident it could get its' hands on, and on its' own people in general will not get a very warm welcome from me). On the state level or during an actual crisis point I can understand some degree of mumness because of the other priorities at play, but again that's why we elect the state: to do the dirty laundry none of us want or otherwise would be able to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    There are no good sides in Vietnam. There never have been, there likely never will be.
    ........so these people are all destined to rot as immoral, subhuman trash incapable of the faculties and beliefs that make us human until the sun rises up and fries the Earth?

    I'm sorry, but I cannot agree, even in a limited capacity. And even if we're talking about as a matter of morality in the war itself, I still cannot agree. I cannot think of any party in the war (or in really any war) who is completely saintly or objectively "good" by the definition of "having done and espoused no bad." However, that's something of a copout in the place of doing objective analysis. It's a copout that might work say... talking about the "sides" of the Italian Wars or other various feudal or colonial smacks where the only really discernible difference between the sides is the banner and tactics. But in here, it doesn't work for the same reason it would be invalid to condemn the all Poles (and their military dictatorship at the time) as being "not a good side" when put up against the Nazis, the Soviets, and the little tag-along clerical national socialist puppet Slovaks rampaging in. And for the same reason the Republic of Korea during the Korean War was not on the same level as the North and its' allies in spite of the Rhee government doing lovely things like arbitrarily mowing down well over a dozen thousand people at Jeju (and elsewhere) just because he feared a North Korean fifth column (with good reason, but without good justification to paper over things like this).

    Like it or not, at some point somebody has to do the work of corpse stacking, and then corpse pile measuring to see how the sides behaved and the sum total of their behavior, and while it pains me to say it Minh etc. al. fell far, far short of what was piled up by the various Communist factions. Not because I think this somehow confers upon them some sort of exoneration or even lessening, just that at the end of the day "these bungholes were sigificantly less bungholish than these other bungholes." That is part of the reason why even at the time the Communist behavior in Korea was infinitely worse than anything the allies there did, and why today, the government descended from Rhee (or at least which draws a lineage to him in part) is now a democracy (after profound external and internal pressure) and the one descended from the Kims is..... we all know.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    Not even the Colonial French were good in my eyes, because they spread the putrid stench of Catholicism into a land that, at the time, was lucky enough not to be tainted by such Religious filth. Not on such a scale, at least.
    I'm not altogether sure what you're getting at. Did Vietnam somehow not have centuries of Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, etc. religion long before the French ever looked over the Annam region, and which were just as capable of magnifying abuses as Chatolicism?

    Anti-Clericalism is one of the last things I'd criticize about the French government of Indochina, since it was basically your usual foreign, quasi-enlightened exploitative Western capitalist colonial system with the usual self-massaging hubris and sense of superiority. The spreading of Catholicism there wasn't always in the most enlightened or consensual fashion, but I find it hard to criticize Father Jacques for going around to preach with the Viets and see if he could get any converts. Especially in comparison to things like the lack of self-government, the economic abuse, and the refusal to meet them midway to try and compromise before the anti-French sentiment got higjacked by radicals from the right (like the Indochinese KMT) and the left (like the VietMinh). The fact that they are sadly probably the best government the region has ever had in modern times is not the most gleaming endorsement of their rule to say the very least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    It was my understanding that the Communists were projected to take power, and the Southern government came into being via a coup that sent the Communists packing into the North. Now I could be hallucinating, or perhaps confusing this with another incident, because let me tell you, I'm certainly too tired to do any proper research on the matter.

    That's... more or less what happened, but there are some extenuating circumstances involved. When the French were about to withdraw due to the many, many, Many different sides calling for their blood (including the US), they gave some legitimacy to the rump government they set up in the Southern part of the country, where they had more or less defeated the Viet Minh, which of course the Communists took power in the North, where they defeated the French. Which left two "Vietnamese" governments in place, and that was what Geneva was arraigned to try and fix.

    It is correct that the Communists were projected to win by a landslide, and even I agree it's hard to see how anybody could have fielded a credible alternative candidate even without the gratuitous vote stuffing taking place in the North (which basically locked in an entire half of the country into the Communist camp- but which they probably would've won anyway again- and which more than outweighed the efforts by Diem and his affiliated forces to stuff the ballots in the South).

    Which is a big part of the reason why I absolutely facepalm at what happened next. Which was basically the Northern government calling on its' local paramilitaries- the descendents of the Southern VM and which would become the VC- to try and raise hell, intimidate the (especially rural) populace into voting Communist, and killing those tied to the government and the non-Communist opposition. The reason why I facepalm at this is because it fits the old quip: "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder." (Now granted, crimes are worse than blunders in terms of morality and ethics, but you can at least defend the former on amoral, pragmatic levels).

    This basically alienated a huge chunk of the Southern population from the Communists, which in effect led them to alligning with the Diem regime by default. That is what gave the government the credibility to do the coup you mentioned. In practice, that was the removal of the Communist delegates and then the cancelling of the planned pan-Vietnamese elections by the Southern regime under the justification that the North was engaged in an act of terrorism against the Southern voters (which was absolutely true) and that the current state of fear, coercion, and general fraud that resulted from this made any pan-national elections moot (Yes, he actually claimed that without irony....feel free to snicker).

    Now, bluntly speaking, do I think Diem gave much of a damn about the legitimacy of the elections? I'm guessing no. He was doing it primarily to hold on to power, and most of his regime and those that followed can be filed likewise. But on a purely legal level, he did have a point. Which is again why I have no idea why Hanoi ever authorized this, since it did nothing but hurt their cause and gave what was otherwise an extremely narrow network of oligarchs a "loyal opposition" that was the only reason the South was able to fight on with or without American or other Western aid.

    Whether or not he would have done so in any event is something I can only theorize at, but given the quality of RVN governance and integrity..... I'm not going to rule it out under any circumstances. The guy was a scumbag and his successors weren't that much better. But the early VC campaigns gave him political cover and legitimacy he otherwise would have never enjoyed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    Because of the tendency of the United States to immediately condemn Communism,
    by its lonesome, for any and all crimes perpetrated during the Vietnam war, whilst most of the time defending the South for all of its equally horrid crimes,
    M... not so sure. I hate to say this, but I'm not altogether sure they were equally horrid (except some, on a case-by-case equivalent basis. Why Yes, Mr. Minh, it's a *spectacular* idea to start arbitrarily persecuting the Buddhist and Hindu priests for no pragmatic reason whatsoever). Not because I believe that the South deserves no blame or that its' government was not an atrocity, but because the two operated on different levels than the Khmer Rouge or the Northern Government did. Bismarck or Franco are probably the best comparisons I can make, and they didn't cause nearly as large a death toll or quite as grinding an oppression. More Mussolini (factoring in his looovely colonial-slash-war-crimes policies) than Hitler, if that makes any sense. The El Salvadorian military would probably have eaten them for lunch in spite of the obvious size disparities involved, something I cannot say about the NVA or VC.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    I figured I might as well try and even the balance a bit, as it were. Whatever I have to say about the North has, in essence, already been said.
    I believe there's a reason why they say "never forget." Something said in the past can be forgotten, and a full accounting of everybody's crimes- from Agent Orange to Thuy Hoa- would do all sides a lot more good than just cataloging Side X or Side Y's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papashaw View Post
    I do know the USA were not saints, but the whole (upper cased)Communist thing is just terrible. Was there any other way to stop it from spreading without invading?
    Eh...offhand? We could have supported the French lock, stock, and barrel and then tried to pressure them into building up a civil government and eventually withdrawing. Or we could have tried to play a harder line on the division by finding some way of convincing the North's backers that if these things continued, there *would* be repercussions (perhaps threatening to drive to Hanoi if they didn't have them put a can on it)?

    Or alternatively let Uncle Ho win his election and then apply the nutcracker to try and keep them honest and to keep them from punting democracy to the side the second it suited them.

    I get what you're saying, and any strategy is flawed, but let's be clear here: there are always alternatives, and it's not even sure that Vietnam was objectively speaking a worthy investment of our limited resources. Certainly in the way it was fought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papashaw View Post
    To those against the Vietnam war, I get your case and understand the bad things the US did, but what to do when many more will be killed by North Vietnamese bayonets?
    Offhand, we have a decent idea, since the Communists did win the war, and we saw what they did down South. But I'd also say that while this should discredit the whole "Uncle Ho and Giap were just patriots" line, I also don't think it should serve as an excuse for the South Vietnamese dictatorship. Especially not when it did things like beat up on the Montagnards for no real reason outside of "Because we're arsehats and we can."

    When we really start falling in to that "Either/Or" dualism, that's when freedom starts to die. We can see it all to easily in the Spanish Civil War and elsewhere, after all. The Southern government was IMHO far better than Hanoi's ever was, but that in and of itself doesn't put the blood they spilled back into the bodies of their rightful owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papashaw View Post
    Why didn't those who were criticizing the US for its crimes equally condemn the North Vietnamese for far greater crimes?
    A decent question, but to be fair:

    A. More than a few do.

    and B. More than a few are..how do I put this politely?.. useful idiots.

    It's a mistake to assume that they're all one or the other. Especially in light of the fact that keeping pressure on the South would've been crucial for any "RVN renaissance" like the kind we saw later in Taiwan or the RoK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papashaw View Post
    Was there any solution at all?
    But of course! There were no shortages to the potential solutions. The only question is in practicality and what they would've cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papashaw View Post
    The world really is without refuge.
    Really, mate. Get over yourself. We're all here, chatting on a relatively free forum, aren't we?

    If the world was really without refuge, we'd all be lying dead in a ditch somewhere. The world isn't a perfect place but it's not an unlivable one either. The fact that anybody here is still alive (...ok, at least *biologically* ) proves that.
    Last edited by Turtler; March 01, 2013 at 11:21 PM. Reason: Edited to deal with Papashaw.

  10. #70
    Dave Strider's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    17,465

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    ...so these people are all destined to rot as immoral, subhuman trash incapable of the faculties and beliefs that make us human until the sun rises up and fries the Earth?
    Oh, whoops, pardon me for not elaborating further...again. I had meant that there were no good political factions in the Vietnam war, and that in all likelihood, no good political factions are likely to take power in Vietnam, if only for a very, very long time. The modern dictatorial "Communist" parties of the world, if nothing else, have...'effective' means of securing their power base.


    EDIT: Also, to elaborate on my statement about the French spreading Catholicism:

    Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, and even Hinduism (though I'm not sure if Hinduism was present in Vietnam or not) are nowhere near as polarizing, distrusting, or radical as Catholicism. Many, many horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, and Catholicism is, in my opinion, responsible for the majority of those acts.
    Last edited by Dave Strider; March 01, 2013 at 11:25 PM.
    when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
    there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
    yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
    but the union makes us strong.

  11. #71

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Actually, you should compare what's happening in Afghanistan today, with the situation in South Vietnam. The local population needs to actively support their government, and resist the insurgents. The inherent corruption within the South Vietnamese power structure and the inability to insulate most of the population from the direct influence of the insurgency, ensures that without the direct support of America, the regimes in power are likely to collapse.

    Had the Americans evacuated South Korea, there seems a high likelihood that tanks would have rolled across that border again, the difference would be that this time, the North Koreans would be more prepared to counter act against arriving American reinforcements.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Pacifists were the bad guys, that much I know

  13. #73

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by DarthShizNit View Post
    Pacifists were the bad guys, that much I know
    Hahaha...Not funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K View Post
    Actually, you should compare what's happening in Afghanistan today, with the situation in South Vietnam. The local population needs to actively support their government, and resist the insurgents. The inherent corruption within the South Vietnamese power structure and the inability to insulate most of the population from the direct influence of the insurgency, ensures that without the direct support of America, the regimes in power are likely to collapse.

    Had the Americans evacuated South Korea, there seems a high likelihood that tanks would have rolled across that border again, the difference would be that this time, the North Koreans would be more prepared to counter act against arriving American reinforcements.
    *ClapClapClapClapClap.* +Rep. Nice, and eloquently put. And still very sobering as well. A lot of the most successful counter-insurgencies rely on basically cutting the enemy off from having any real ability to affect much of anything, and then slowly wiping them out in the jungles. The British Commonwealth in particular has been traditionally very, very good at this; that's a large reason why they managed to prevent the Communist revolt in Malaysia from gaining power and why they basically neutered Indonesia's attempts to march into Northern Borneo.

    Failing to do that means that you're basically caught into a big, bloody attrition match over which side can outlast the other. Sometimes, the government wins (like we see in the Algerian civil war, the Indian Mutiny, the Frondes, the United Irishmen revolt, and just about everything Israel's had to do when faced with existential collapse), but just as often if not more, it loses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    Oh, whoops, pardon me for not elaborating further...again. I had meant that there were no good political factions in the Vietnam war, and that in all likelihood, no good political factions are likely to take power in Vietnam, if only for a very, very long time. The modern dictatorial "Communist" parties of the world, if nothing else, have...'effective' means of securing their power base.
    Ya, that seemed a bit "WT-"y, and my apologies for that. Even so, I'm not so sure I'd go that far, since again while a lot of the nations involved in the allied side in Vietnam (the Philippine and South Korean governments offhand) were not good, and no nation was clean of dishonor whatsoever, I'd argue that at the very least there were "relatively" good (which is about the best as you can get in this world) sides and factions. After all, it's not like everybody fighting for every side was a mouth-breathing monster.

    Unfortunately, I agree that Vietnam is not going to have an easy rise from the morass, and probably wouldn't no matter which side came out on top in the Second War. But hope springs eternal, after all? Case in point: modern Spain (economic mess-up aside) and the later RoK.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    EDIT: Also, to elaborate on my statement about the French spreading Catholicism:

    Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, and even Hinduism (though I'm not sure if Hinduism was present in Vietnam or not) are nowhere near as polarizing, distrusting, or radical as Catholicism.
    A: Hinduism was, but in small amounts. Mainly due to splash off from the Champa and Khmer.

    B: *Weighs hand..* I'm not so sure about that, especially in terms of how this and that were applied in practice. Especially vis-a-vis Confucianism; people have modernized it, but that doesn't change the fact that at the time, it's hard to get more distrusting and polarizing than "This is the Way the World Works, This Is the Only Way Society Can Work, It is a Man's job to XXXX, it is a Woman's Job to YYYY, the Ruler must fulfill this, this is the only real source of knowledge, and *every* natural catastrophe is invariably a sign of decay rather than...... wait. What are those white Devil's doing with that canno-? *BOOM*"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    Many, many horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, and Catholicism is, in my opinion, responsible for the majority of those acts.
    Agreed tentatively, given the duration of Catholicism and it's largely unquestioned rule over Christendom up until the East-West Schism and especially the Protestant Reformation (which conveniently covers things like the Crusades, the obliteration of more Pagan groups than I can care to name- and a huge amount of collateral damage to boot-, the oppression of women, etc. It has a heck of a lot to answer for. But by extension, I'd also argue that it has a lot of good or relatively good things to answer for and that in many ways it's gotten some *unjustly* bad raps (fun fact: the Spanish Inquisition probably started a lot of modern criminal law,and a few of their practices are still on the books). So personally it just kind of strikes me like complaining about-say- WWII and pre-WWII Japan's exulting the Emperor as a divine and absolute figure because it stigmatizes Christians/Jews/Taoists.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Purposefully destroying the natural environment in order to damage your enemy, or for whatever other means, is evil, so USA is out for me (otherwise, they seem like one of the nicer factions). Not even considering commies, so this means I agree with Vopohame on page 1, in that the small indigenous tribes were the good guys.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Strider View Post
    Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, and even Hinduism (though I'm not sure if Hinduism was present in Vietnam or not) are nowhere near as polarizing, distrusting, or radical as Catholicism. Many, many horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, and Catholicism is, in my opinion, responsible for the majority of those acts.
    Depends on whether you're viewing them as an abstract religion, i.e. the "original idea" of it, or if you're looking at concrete local forms. Not sure about Daoism, apart from it being a bit absurd, but at least the others you've mentioned can be just as radical as Catholicism IMO, though perhaps a little more tolerant of other deities. I mean, the caste system of Hinduism is pretty severe, as is the Lamaist order of things, for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Hahaha...Not funny.
    He has a point. Pacifist hypocrites, just like Militarist idiots, are responsible for a lot of bloodshed.

  15. #75

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Purposefully destroying the natural environment in order to damage your enemy, or for whatever other means, is evil, so USA is out for me (otherwise, they seem like one of the nicer factions). Not even considering commies, so this means I agree with Vopohame on page 1, in that the small indigenous tribes were the good guys.
    The logic of that is actually pretty bad. Pray tell what do you think those small indigenous tribes often did, especially when they had to pack up and flee (because the VC, PAVN, and ARVN in roughly declining levels of importance liked to either press gang or attack them) out of their native environments. By that sort of logic, the Bielski Partisans weren't good guys simply by dint of starting Massive forest fires to ward off things like the *rather large German combined arms commands* that they eventually sent after them with the purpose of wiping them all out.

    As cold as it may be to say, and as much as the environmentalist in me chills to say it, the natural environment's just another casualty of war, as a result of war itself. Like collateral damage. This doesn't mean I'm going to applaud those who did it, but ont he other hand I'm also not going to criticize things like Finland's scorched earth policy when facing the Soviets.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    He has a point. Pacifist hypocrites, just like Militarist idiots, are responsible for a lot of bloodshed.
    Not overly. After all, he didn't specify "Pacifist hypocrites", no?

    I agree you have a point in that much, but I can only judge what is there.

  16. #76
    Minas Moth's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    1,338

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Fellow forum members, and all those who wish to read this...

    I have been around this forums for quite a while now, posting in this and that forum or thread, gave my contributions (as best I could) to all those who asked me of some opinion. I gave my contributions even when my opinion wasn't asked for, but I never in my life nor my forum time had been nothing but positive contributor to any thread I posted. Even if my opinions were wrong I was never told that I should change my opinion, nor I ever asked someone to do so when I was strongly convinced that their opinion was wrong indeed. I can't imagine how and why would my posts result in responses such as were given by Turtler.

    I hold this truth self-evident and a principle to be behold too: In any conflict (be it civil war, state, european or even a world war) civilians should be protected and should never be harmed. I do not understand why would anyone think that I should take a time out because of it? I never stated that communist (or whatever government) weren't doing the things member Turtler pointed out (here); I hold it true and utterly unfortunate that indeed many states of various political orientations had, and still do commit such an atrocities. From the time of Ancient Greece, Rome, Charlemagne, to the years of Crusades, Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII and modern conflicts, civilians had been attacked, tortured, deprived of their living-hood in most cases for no other reason for just being where they were... But does making a thing for a very long time make it ok? Can we hope that if we rob banks on daily basis, that in some 200 years it will not be considered a crime, because everyone is doing it? is that what a civilization (in general) has come too? That we are prepared to abandon the essential human being principles and values for a sake of more territory, oil, prestige or leverage on the international scale? I for one, am not going to accept it... it is what goes against my nature as a person I am now. I can't and will not condone any form of violence on people who haven't deserved it. Be it 180 Vietnam civilians whose 20 co-villagers were insurgents, be it some American whose rights are threatened or is being treated badly for sake of being American... If any of you, including a member Turtler, believe my views wrong, I can accept that, but I can't accept any level, form or insinuation of any forceful change of my opinion.

    My knowledge of Vietnam War doesn't need to be profound or deep as member Turtler's obviously is. On that I sincerely do envy him. But I have never received similar treatment from any other forum member when I lacked in knowledge. More often, members proved to be a great guides in a matter where I can find more information on the subject I am lacking. The entire point of discussion and historical research (at least where I come from) isn't making all of the people have the same opinion, beauty of it is to have different opinions on the same matter. Be them correct or wrong, mind always thrives and develops when he is surrounded and fed with different opinions. Just because of that, I salute member Turtler's response on my post, as it is his opinion, and I have no intention of changing it... In return, all I expect is the same treatment in return. why should I, or anyone else, agree with member Turtler's opinions? is there some higher force that will bolt us with lightning if we don't? are we compelled to kneel before his eloquence, strong argumentation (when there is some), and sheer amount of words written and reject all our beliefs? Once again I say no...

    I am a peaceful man, I live by the words: "Live and let live!" I wish harm to nobody, and I don't want to start a flame war or something like that because of such a matter like this. However, what I do request is an apology from member Turtler, an apology for how his words are written, an apology for his attack (in lacking of better words) on my opinions and my believes. I think I am entitled to that as a member of this forum and a human being... I apologize for my lacking English and lack of eloquence some other members can show on this forum... I believed we were all equal and peers here...

    MM

  17. #77

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    The logic of that is actually pretty bad. Pray tell what do you think those small indigenous tribes often did, especially when they had to pack up and flee (because the VC, PAVN, and ARVN in roughly declining levels of importance liked to either press gang or attack them) out of their native environments. By that sort of logic, the Bielski Partisans weren't good guys simply by dint of starting Massive forest fires to ward off things like the *rather large German combined arms commands* that they eventually sent after them with the purpose of wiping them all out.
    Well, as much as I hate to apply double standards, surely there is a difference between a small native people fighting desperately for survival and a powerful, well-equipped state entangled in a war (in this case, on foreign turf even). That said, WWII partisans committed their own share of war crimes, although I'm not gonna judge them too hard for this, given what they had to face, and that most of them were actually trying to defend their homeland, which is anybody's right.


    Not overly. After all, he didn't specify "Pacifist hypocrites", no?
    Pacifists, like militarists, are fools by definition.

  18. #78

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    Fellow forum members, and all those who wish to read this...

    I have been around this forums for quite a while now, posting in this and that forum or thread, gave my contributions (as best I could) to all those who asked me of some opinion. I gave my contributions even when my opinion wasn't asked for, but I never in my life nor my forum time had been nothing but positive contributor to any thread I posted. Even if my opinions were wrong I was never told that I should change my opinion, nor I ever asked someone to do so when I was strongly convinced that their opinion was wrong indeed. I can't imagine how and why would my posts result in responses such as were given by Turtler.
    To Minas Moth, if you wish to read this, I thank you for your contributions to the thread and forum as a whole, and especially your explanation on here now. It is quite enlightening, and I wish to be the first to apologize for any problems caused by this. In an effort to try and help explain- to help imagine how and why I tend to respond as I do- I wish to state I am a military and political historian for whom matters of warfare and ethics are not merely abstracts, but often cut very dear indeed. I suffer those I perceive to be acting in bad faith and/or willfully and impermeably ignorant very badly, because I know all too painfully that very little I do or say could or would make them see the light. I also confess I tend to get a bit exasperated when I perceive people to be drawing false conclusions or inaccurate comparisons, like I did in relation to the carpet bombing reference. For that, I apologize.

    On this subject in particular I have often had to deal with those who do not merely seek to twist and manipulate the facts and the past to their advantage (which almost all do to some degree), but those who do so towards one of the most sinister and disgusting purposes history and historical scholarship has yet been graced with. This is a field where as often as not, good will and fairness cannot be assumed or taken for granted, and so I tend to be more militant in response. Particularly since on these threads themselves, i have had a far more uneven and less uniformly positive experience than you have by your words, having run across people with similar twisted and unreachable ideologies. This is not a justification, or a real defense, but my attempt at an explanation, for not all have been as enlightened as yourself or the others that have appeared on this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    I hold this truth self-evident and a principle to be behold too: In any conflict (be it civil war, state, european or even a world war) civilians should be protected and should never be harmed. I do not understand why would anyone think that I should take a time out because of it?
    And I, Turtler, hold this truth to be self-evident: That as a matter of principal I agree wholeheartedly that civilians should ALWAYS be protected and should never be harmed in conflict, and that any who even contemplate violating this for military gain should be punished. However, as a matter of fact I believe it impossible to fully meet the demands of that matter of principle due to the very nature of war itself. I believe as a matter of fact and principle we must strive towards that ideal anyway *Without reservation* and without hesitation, even if we know it is impossible. I do not see how acknowledging the inherent problems with it being reality should be stigmatized, or taken as a view of moral corruption.

    If we could make it so that every military operation and activity could be undertaken like that of San Matteo in WWI- happening well away from any civilian population or with any possibility of dishonor or disgrace- I would be the first to thank God for that grace. If in some hypothetical future we can make that reality, I would be the first to greet it. But until that happy day, there is a reason why it would invariably fall under the terms of an "Utopian Fallacy."

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    I never stated that communist (or whatever government) weren't doing the things member Turtler pointed out (here); I hold it true and utterly unfortunate that indeed many states of various political orientations had, and still do commit such an atrocities. From the time of Ancient Greece, Rome, Charlemagne, to the years of Crusades, Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII and modern conflicts, civilians had been attacked, tortured, deprived of their living-hood in most cases for no other reason for just being where they were... But does making a thing for a very long time make it ok?
    And I do not ignore or justify such crimes of morality (even where they are not technically crimes of law); I am just forced to admit that while it does not make it "ok" by a long shot, it does make it often unavoidable, or a side effect of the war itself. Such things can, have, and often times will happen even if all sides involved take the most stringent of methods to try and avoid it, and often times they do not indeed. However, does that mean we are justified in applying an impossible standard of behavior and conduct to all sides regardless? Of course not.

    The simple fact of the matter is that we can and *must* apply a standard of behavior to the combatants in war, and that it must be as stringent as possible, but that does not mean that we are anywhere close to a time when not harming civilians in any way (even indirectly) is yet a plausible standard to measure them by. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that not all sides or all ideologies are the same, even if they do all harm civilians in war. This does not mean that any and all acts that harm them are wrong, and tragic, or that we should apply different standards to the same crime just because a different army committed it.

    But it does mean that civilian suffering is just another fact of war. This is something I do not and will never like arguing, but it is something I cannot escape arguing as a historian who has an obligation to not look away or ignore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    Can we hope that if we rob banks on daily basis, that in some 200 years it will not be considered a crime, because everyone is doing it?
    That is to have it backwards. Robbing banks is and always has been illegal (except done in the course of certain legal courses or confiscations, or in the course of a military campaign, but those are not referred to as outside the laws that govern such things), strategies that cause human suffering in war have been the default for more or less all of human history, and those that explicitly exploit civilian suffering have only just begun to be curtailed. So while it is true that perhaps in some 200 years we can hope that the ravaging of a bank by a military for strategic reason will be regarded as both a crime and unnecessary along with all the greater and lesser causes of civilian suffering in war. But as it is, we cannot judge where we are now by impossible standards and hope to recieve an accurate accounting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    is that what a civilization (in general) has come too?
    Again, if anything it is the opposite. It is what civilization (in general) is slowly discovering it. If we were to go back in time ot Renaissance Europe, or to Rome, the supposedly fine statesmen, ethicists, and soldiers of the time would have by and large looked at us like we were the *insane* ones. So take heart in that: we have been getting better on the balance, overall.


    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    hat we are prepared to abandon the essential human being principles and values for a sake of more territory, oil, prestige or leverage on the international scale?
    If anything, the sad fact is not that many people are prepared to do so. It is that now, many nations are *not* prepared to do so, at least in whole. As well as the fact that we are willing to try and parse out what is and is not acceptable in terms far narrower than any black powder commander would have recognized. This does not mean we cannot retain perfection to our ideals, values, and principles in war or avoid all civilian suffering, but it does mean that we are not wholly debased either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    I for one, am not going to accept it... it is what goes against my nature as a person I am now. I can't and will not condone any form of violence on people who haven't deserved it.
    I cannot accept as a historian or as a human being violence on people who have not deserved it, but I also cannot ignore that it is totally possible to insulate those who do not deserve it from it. After all, are there not conscripts in an army who bear no malice or evil towards any, but who die just the same as the Giaps or Calleys to their sides?

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    Be it 180 Vietnam civilians whose 20 co-villagers were insurgents, be it some American whose rights are threatened or is being treated badly for sake of being American... If any of you, including a member Turtler, believe my views wrong, I can accept that, but I can't accept any level, form or insinuation of any forceful change of my opinion.
    Then so be it. But while I do not believe they are wrong, I do believe that they are impossible. It's one thing to recognize these moral principles as important, but it's another to believe they are capable of being perfectly applied in war as a whole. Maybe on the small scale (if you are actually the soldier with a gun on the ground), but you cannot be everywhere, or stop everything. If it is going to happen, it will happen. The only concrete way to stop this now is to institute discipline before and after the fact, and to try and make wars decided without bringing in the civilian population, and unfortunately those ways are far from infallible.

    But that fact in and of itself does not mean we must never fight war itself (but certainly to limit it severely, to the most justifiable cases).

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    My knowledge of Vietnam War doesn't need to be profound or deep as member Turtler's obviously is. On that I sincerely do envy him.
    I thank you for the compliment, and I must say I envy your way of words, and your bull-headed attachment to noble principles, even where I do not think they can practically be applied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    But I have never received similar treatment from any other forum member when I lacked in knowledge.
    This legitimately surprises me on a number of levels, especially given that I've been here for far less time than I would guess you have, and I've already run into a couple prominant individuals whose behavior and ethical standards are abysmally low. So I'm not sure how this is, or whether perhaps you've had different experiences with them or just have had the better luck to never run in to them, but in any event I do envy you for that almost as much as I'm perplexed by that apparent luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    More often, members proved to be a great guides in a matter where I can find more information on the subject I am lacking. The entire point of discussion and historical research (at least where I come from) isn't making all of the people have the same opinion, beauty of it is to have different opinions on the same matter.
    I am not a Borg drone who wants to assimilate all, and I would be all too happy to share sources (and I find it regretable I've had to withhold a lot of them because some people are so far up the creek it wouldn't be worth the effort). But I feel obliged to point out that a number of opinions in my experience could n ot be further from being anything beautiful. Apologism for totalitarianism and authoritarianism (regardless of the political stripe) is something I react very personally and very badly to, and is not something I feel inclined to be passive at. This isn't to say that all opposing opinions from mine fall under that criteria (and I'm very sorry I went off half cocked), but I have no compulsion with running some "different opinions" off or into the ground, because I have good direct reason that those who espouse such poisonous ideologies would not hesitate to cut the throats of myself or my loved ones. In fact, my family history has direct, objective proof of such things.

    To counter such ideals, I will admit it: if eggs are to be broken and human suffering is to happen, I'd much rather have it happen in the service of preventing such regimes and ideologies from setting up shop to endanger god knows how many, than I would be in accepting hypothetically identical suffering that is towards their establishment. I am well aware this is not objectively different morally, and more than a little bit of an inconsistency. I just hold that in the grand scheme of things and in the imperfect state of warfare we are in, it is preferable to the alternative. For that, I beg your understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    Be them correct or wrong, mind always thrives and develops when he is surrounded and fed with different opinions.
    I agree tentatively. However, I believe that this feeding must happen with certain safeguards in place, for the same reason schools do not allow bullies to surround their fellow students with a different opinion on social Darwinism or the weak being justly crushed under the strong. Within a fair marketplace of ideas, different opinions can sharpen like iron sharpens iron. However, in different circumstances the intercene conflict, pressure, and degredation of civil standards can and will drag the mind and the people that own it down, reducing them to something less than they deserve to be.

    Since we are on a free forum, the downsides are not as readily seeable, and such actions can happen at will, more or less. But I don't think the mind can thrive (to the same degree, at laest) when the mouth is fed castor oil and/or gasoline due to its' exposure to a different opinion that holds the beating up of opponents in th e service of an armed coup can be acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    Just because of that, I salute member Turtler's response on my post, as it is his opinion, and I have no intention of changing it... In return, all I expect is the same treatment in return.
    And I salute you for your eloquent appeal, and I confirm that I will give you the treatment you seek, but I will not yield my critical assessment of many parts of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    why should I, or anyone else, agree with member Turtler's opinions?
    At least in some part because more than a few of my points are based on the truth, not as I see it or as I would like it, but on some things none of us can deny. Civilians suffering in war is the default status of military campaigns, not some sort of abberation. Not all ideologies are equally guilty. And blah blah fact X on the ground, Fact Y on the ground, etc. I couldn't change these facts even if I wanted to (and in at least a couple I *do* want to), and no eoloquence on my part or lack thereof could possibly change it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    is there some higher force that will bolt us with lightning if we don't? are we compelled to kneel before his eloquence, strong argumentation (when there is some), and sheer amount of words written and reject all our beliefs? Once again I say no...
    And that is fine. But you are obliged to kneel before and accept some facts. Like the idea that human civilization in terms of its' ethics in warfare... has truthfully been far less optimal than even we are now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    I am a peaceful man, I live by the words: "Live and let live!"
    And for that I say you should have the best of luck doing so and living your life. But I feel obliged to point out that in many ways, you and I both owe our existances to Orwell's word about why we are able to sleep peacefully in our beds and live lives of peace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    I wish harm to nobody,
    And for that, you are quite admirable even if I believe it is somewhat misguided. You are far less filled with mallice than I, for I do not believe it moral to *not* wish harm to some select people who have done little but harm the world and seek to harm people like you and me (Stalin, Hitler, etc. al.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    and I don't want to start a flame war or something like that because of such a matter like this.
    And neither do I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    However, what I do request is an apology from member Turtler, an apology for how his words are written, an apology for his attack (in lacking of better words) on my opinions and my believes. I think I am entitled to that as a member of this forum and a human being...
    And I am sorry, but I have apologized for all I will. I shall not apologize any further, until you yourself give an apology of your own. An apology for thoughless defamation towards those in this generation and those ones countless in the past, for judging them by a logical fallacy and an impossibly high standard for any human being to meet, especially ones in the situation of war. I ask you to apologize to my Grandfather (who it is hard to imagine could be more different politically than me within the prism of free and democratic thought) for his service in the Far Eastern theater of WWII for heaping condemnation on his efforts and those of his follows for helping to save countless lives from the Japanese Empire. I ask you to apologize to those countless others like him in the militaries of the world throughout history for condemning them for taking up the burden of the sword and all that comes with it in spite of the alternatives being far worse.

    Until then, I have said all I will on this matter. I have apologized as far as i deem necessary and proper for me to do as one forum member and human being to another. I will not go further in doing so, for the same reasons I will not and will never- as a historian and a human being- condemn those who acted in good faith, good intent, and good conduct in war even if war itself is so disgusting. For that is something I feel obliged to do, as a consciencious student of history and a consciencious human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    I apologize for my lacking English and lack of eloquence
    Don't worry, mate. Your English is actually very, very good. Far better than a lot of native speakers, I daresay. And you are on the whole quite eloquent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minas Moth View Post
    some other members can show on this forum... I believed we were all equal and peers here...

    MM
    And we are, for better or worse. That is part of the reason I feel obliged to fight so strictly and unflailingly in this theater. And why I will be honored to continue discussing matters with you again.

    Turtler.


    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Well, as much as I hate to apply double standards, surely there is a difference between a small native people fighting desperately for survival and a powerful, well-equipped state entangled in a war (in this case, on foreign turf even).
    Ehh... sure, there's a difference. The question is whether or not that difference is substantive in ethical or moral terms. After all, anybody want to argue that-say- the Malaysian communist guerillas were necessarily better than the government and British COmmonwealth forces just because the former were guerillas fighting desperately while the latter were powerful, and well equipped states engaged in (more often than not) a foreign war?

    In spite of the fact that it was the former attempting to overthrow the government and impose a dictatorship, while the latter were trying to ensure the continuity of the Colonial to the Indepdendent government, and to try and prevent things from degenerating into a banana republic (for once)?

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    That said, WWII partisans committed their own share of war crimes, although I'm not gonna judge them too hard for this, given what they had to face, and that most of them were actually trying to defend their homeland, which is anybody's right.
    *Measures hand.* Maybe, but I'm not sure that necessarily qualifies them for more lenient judgement in and of itself. It's hard to ride the Bielski Partisans even if they were honorary bandits, but Tito's JANL were far more ambitious and far less restrained, to the point where while they were primarily dealing with a cruel occupation and the defense of their homeland, they were also engaged in what I can only call unnecessary political terrorism.


    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Pacifists, like militarists, are fools by definition.
    Perhaps, but that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about the amount of bloodshed caused by such.

  19. #79
    MaximiIian's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,895

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    None. The Americans were there for imperialistic reasons, and regularly conducted themselves barbarously. The Soviets and Chinese advisers were much the same story. The North Vietnamese committed terrible atrocities and were totalitarians, samewise with their southern opponents (RVN) and allies (VC).
    Maybe the Montagnards, as they were largely just defending themselves. But I don't know enough about their place in the war other than that; and my perspective on violence leads me towards ambivalence rather than support of their efforts.

  20. #80
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Who were the good guys in the Vietnam War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Actually, that's not overly true at all. Or more actually, it's partially, technically true, but there are so many omissions it's not even funny.

    For one, the idea that there is no evidence for South Vietnam becoming a democracy requires you completely ignore the case studies of Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic post-Trujillo....
    First, those aren't case studies. Don't use a word you don't know the meaning of.

    Second, you can't compare those countries with South Vietnam. Just because it has happened in those does not guarantee it would happen in South Vietnam nor is it a good excuse to support South Vietnam considering i ca list just as many communist countries who eventually became democracies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    I could go on. Especially given the fact that the ARVN didn't lack for "loyal opposition"; they just tended to get crushed by either A: the regime or especially B: the Communists after they took over.
    The ARVN was horrible. It was infiltrated heavily by the Viet Cong. i would never rely on them for anything. The South Vietnamese Marines were much better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Secondly, the Geneva Accords were horribly, HORRIBLY goddamned illegitimate as written by the time we even get into the elections, and so on multiple levels.
    First, that is a lie. The Geneva Accords for Vietnam were written in 1954 and the elections were to be held in 1956.

    And please. Explain how these Accords were illegitimate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    For one, the Western Allies would never, ever have signed on to it without various behind the scenes agreements with the other sides where they agreed (tactly)
    That does not make the accords illegitimate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    that while the agreement forbade the partition of Vietnam, in practice they would not rule out anything, including a vote supporting a split.
    Yes, a vote South Vietnam refused to hold.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    This of course was tacitly ignored by the Communists afterwards, who held that Geneva somehow trumped international laws regarding Self-Determination, which is absolutely groundless.
    The Geneva Accords were a signed agreement that was supposed to determine the fate of the teo countries. The only country denying self-determination here is South Vietnam as they refused to hold the vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    That isn't to say the Self-Determination was absolutely flawless or beautiful, but compared to outright trying to insist one of the cornerstones of international law somehow gets suspended is not just morally wrong, it's pretty idiotic on a PR level.
    South Vietnam was the only ones denying self-determination. They denied their people the right to chose whenever to remain a separate country or unite with North Vietnam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    And finally, on the subject of Uncle Ho being so thoroughly popular and the South Vietnamese being purely to blame for throwing out the elections, I'm not going to say there aren't measures of truth in both. However, you seem to be forgetting that Washington was accused of becoming a tyrant or military dictator at several times (and that there were a number of communities that absolutely hated him for what he did on campaign), and that unlike Washington Uncle Ho categorically DID NOT rise above those accusations; just the opposite.
    Which means nothing as i wasn't comparing the two people. Point is that Ho Chi Mihn was extremely popular, and if the 1956 elections had been allowed to happen, chances are the country would be united under him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    For one, I'm not going to lie here: South Vietnam's preparations for the elections were filled with irregularities and less than ethical accounting, but most of it was relatively
    "normal"; usually the urban political machines and local quasi-feudal holdovers conspiring to try and steal the vote or at least heavily manipulate it, like what we'd see in Gilded Age America.
    The elections were completely rigged. Diem was credited with receiving 131% of the vote in Saigon. Even gilded age America was better than this. These elections were a complete sham.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    For two? By this point in time, the only removals of Uncle Ho's name from the ballot were illegal, local hodge podges by what were equivalent to the local corrupt polling station and were generally not thaaaat widespread (though still pretty massive), and even by my own evaluation wouldn't have been enough to change the results of the election. There was considerable anti-Communist/Pro-Western sentiment in the South dating back to at least the Japanese occupation, but even factoring that in it's hard to imagine how it would've been enough to negate that. So, how did he really, Really get his name thrown out?
    Wow. That has to be the biggest understatement of how rigged the elections in South Vietnam were.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o...ferendum,_1955

    Lansdale advised Diệm to print his ballots in red, while those of Bảo Đại were printed in green. In Vietnam, red is associated with good luck and prosperity, whereas green is often associated with a cuckold and bad luck.[1][33][50] Diệm's red ballots pictured him with youthful and modern-looking people, while Bảo Đại's photo was placed in old fashioned robes, which he never wore.[18] In addition, Bảo Đại's portrait showed him to appear dazed and bloated, while Diệm and those surrounding him were smiling and appeared to be energetic.[51] The ballot claimed that a vote for Diệm would be a vote for democracy, stating "I depose Bao Dai and recognise Ngo Dinh Diem as Head of State, charged with the commission of setting up a democratic regime."[18][23][51] Bảo Đại's ballot read "I do not depose Bao Dai and do not regard Ngo Dinh Diem as the Head of State charged with the commission of setting up a democratic regime."[18][51]The voters would place the red or green ballot into the box, according to their preference, while discarding the other, which meant the voting was actually not secret.[23]
    That right there alone is some really bad manipulation of the election.

    The logistics of the referendum were organised and supervised by Diệm's brother and confidant, Nhu, who was the leader of the family's secret Cần Lao party, which supplied the Ngôs electoral base. Reports of violence and intimidation were widespread. During the referendum, Nhu's staff told voters to throw away the green ballots. Those who disobeyed were often chased down and beaten, with pepper sauce and water sometimes being forced into their nostrils.[1][32] The violations were particularly flagrant in central Vietnam,[52] a region over which another of Diệm's younger brothers, Ngô Đình Cẩn, ruled.[53] Cẩn was based in the former imperial capital city of Huế, home of the Nguyen Dynasty and a source of support for Bảo Đại. He stifled this support by ordering the police to arrest 1,200 people for political reasons in the week leading up to the vote.[52] In the city of Hoi An, several people were killed in election violence on the day of the poll.[54] Voting started at 07:00 and ended at 17:00.[55]
    And here we go, Diem's brother controlling the logistics and locking people up for political reasons.

    But just for good measure.

    Diệm's government formulated procedural regulations ostensibly designed to ensure results and ballots were correctly accounted for and to prevent election fraud. In reality however, the votes were counted without independent supervision, which resulted in Diệm being credited with 98.2% of the vote. The prime minister tallied 605,025 votes in Saigon, although only 450,000 voters were registered in the capital. Diệm's tally exceeded the registration numbers in other districts.[1][32] French newspapers claimed that only half of the registered voters in Saigon had actually voted, and that the rest had boycotted the election,[56] implying that more than 60% of the votes in the capital were not authentic. Defenders of Diệm claim this was due to recently arrived, mostly Catholic, refugees from North Vietnam who voted without being enrolled, rather than large-scale ballot stuffing.[54]
    The Elections in south Vietnam were nothing but a sham.



    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Well, in the months prior to the election date, the North unleashed the Viet Cong on the south to "Get out the Vote", using such dynamic voter-participation campaigns as "Burn the Rice Fields", the "Gun (down the village) Drives", and "Cut off various bodily parts."]
    I'd like a source for this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    To this day I have no idea whatsoever why they did this, because it did them not one damn whit of good; they were almost certainly going to win anyway. But in the end, they managed to singularly alienate huge chunks of the rural *and* urban populace, and made them throw their support behind what basically amounted to the local banana republic tyrants with the local feudal strongmen who would otherwise thoroughly have lacked any legitimacy whatsoever.
    No. Thats not even remotely close as my link showed above. These elections were massively rigged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Now, I think it's pretty obvious they were doing this mainly to hold on to power, but legally and ethically speaking they had a point; considering the Communists had stood out as being horrible in an already trouble/corruption ridden election cycle, that should speak something.
    Not when the other side was just as corrupt and horrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    Better corrupt oligarchs than totalitarians,
    So neither? Both were dictators. Diem was much more than just a corrupt oligarch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    and better the French than the tyrants of either left or right. At least those circumstances offered more hope than what actually happened; relying on the murdering, absolute, charismatic dictator to change what he was doing.
    At least following through with the elections in 1956 would have saved millions of Vietnamese, thousands of American and other Allied soldiers in the war that would follow.
    Best/Worst quotes of TWC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    While you are at it, allow Germany to rearm, it's not like they committed the worst atrocity in modern history, so having a strong army can't lead to anything pitiful.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •