I have heard some voices on this forum saying USA was the good guy in Vietnam

[Nikitn]

Even claiming that Vietcong killed more civilians than the US! What are they basing this on? Chemical agents sprayed all over S. and N. Vietnam that were contaminated with chemicals that could mutate cells (and these cells would continue reproducing new mutated cells, this is especially bad with egg cells and sperm). Those killed a few hundred thousands alone as well as ing up well over a million lives. Then we have things like dropping napalm on villages which supported the insurgents, destroying rice fields making people starve ET CETRA.

Sure Vietcong did go amok a few times like when they took Hue, but so did American soldiers (drugged on US army supplied "anti depressants"...?), most notably at My lai and My Khe (504 civilians executed and raped).

We even have US soldiers assigned as deathsquads, most notably Tiger Force.

Story from a random massacre, from wiki:

Kerrey's SEAL team first encountered a peasant house, or hooch, and killed the people inside with knives. While Kerrey says he did not go inside the hooch and did not participate in the killings, another member of the team, Gerhard Klann, said that the people killed there were an elderly man and woman and three children under 12, and that Kerrey helped kill the man. Despite the differing recollections about who actually stabbed these people, Kerrey accepts responsibility as the team leader for their deaths: "Standard operating procedure was to dispose of the people we made contact with," he told the New York Times Magazine.[3] Later, according to Kerrey, the team was shot at from the village and returned fire, only to find after the battle that all the dead were women and children, clustered together in the center of the village. "The thing that I will remember until the day I die is walking in and finding, I don't know, 14 or so, I don't even know what the number was, women and children who were dead," Kerrey said in 1998. "I was expecting to find Vietcong soldiers with weapons, dead. Instead I found women and children."[3] Klann, and a Vietnamese woman, Pham Tri Lanh, who says she witnessed the assault, gave a different account, saying that the SEALs rounded up the inhabitants of the village and shot them.
Regardless of what actually occurred that night, Kerrey expressed anguish and guilt over the incident:

mods, don't delete this thread. it is totally different from that Vietnam War thread we had.

[Dr. Croccer]

Whilst I obviously don't agree with Nikitn, it seems that some Americans refuse to admit that their country did bad things during the war.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Whilst I obviously don't agree with Nikitn, it seems that some Americans refuse to admit that their country did bad things during the war.

People do bad things during every war, otherwise it wouldn't be war.

[SigniferOne]

Of course the US did bad things, it was a war for god's sake. Both sides did bad things, and doing bad things in war does not determine whether you're a good guy or not. What does determine it is if you're fighting for a good thing. The Vietcong was a violent communist oppressor which attempted to conquer and violently impose its rule by thuggery and theft on South Vietnam, just as similarly happened in South Korea. America was fighting for a moral system of government, as can be seen in what they were able to achieve in S. Korea by contrast with N. Korea. By contrast the US failed to defeat the communists in Vietnam, which led to the absolute impoverishment and devastation of the country for the next 30 years.

[Nikitn]

Actually, S. Vietnamese government was a (significantly) less brutal and oppressive than the S. Korean totalitarian dictatorship, but it was brutal and oppressive nonetheless. The entire war started because the S. Vietnamese government refused 2 allow a democratic election about the re-unification of Vietnam to take place.

[HansDuet]

What?

There was no "Good" nor "Bad" in that clusterfck.

Personally I would have rather seen South Vietnamese win since I am not so keen on communism. So yea, from my point of view, the US would've been the "good" guys.

[s.rwitt]

There was no "good guy" in Vietnam, there were atrocities on all sides. There was, however, a side that was trying to invade their neighbor and a side that was not trying to invade their neighbor. The OP has in the past mixed the two up.

[Dr. Croccer]

There was no "good guy" in Vietnam, there were atrocities on all sides. There was, however, a side that was trying to invade their neighbor and a side that was not trying to invade their neighbor. The OP has in the past mixed the two up.

The side that didn't invade anyone also killed and imprisoned people on the basis of their political ideology; forced an ethnic minority to migrate and destroyed their livelihoods when they refused, causing an ethnic hatred which lasts to this day; implemented a policy of active religious persecution against the Buddhist majority, to the point where Buddhist temples had private armies and temples were shelled; killed unarmed protestors on more than one occasion; was incredibly politically corrupt and undemocratic and many more atrocities.

To be fair, one could regard the North Vietnamese as a liberation, considering that South Vietnamese peasants, leftists, Buddhists, Montagnards and many others were treated horribly during the reign of Diem, which is basically more than 90% of the South Vietnamese population.

[Claudius Gothicus]

As Croccer already pointed out, S. Vietnam was one of the most corrupt, illegitimate and dictatorial states in the whole 20th century.

Now, I'm no commie but let's be honest South Vietnamese government lost all of it's legitimation when they screwed the democratic system, killed innocent civilians and persecuted people because of their personal beliefs.
The problem for the USA comes form allying itself with a state in order to stop other that was backed by soviet sponsored communism, which at the same time would not have needed to resort to their(Soviets) help if they weren't being ed by the western nations(France and USA).

[YuriVII]

There was no "good guy" in Vietnam, there were atrocities on all sides. There was, however, a side that was trying to invade their neighbor and a side that was not trying to invade their neighbor. The OP has in the past mixed the two up.

Little more complicated than that since both sides were the same nation divided into two states by larger powers. It's kinda like a war of national unification. Similar to what Italy did. Dividing a country like that when in age of nationstates was asking for trouble. Germany, Korea, Vietnam all ended quite well. Of all those countries, only Korea is still divided, and that is only because of the giant amount of weapons on both sides of the border.

[Farnan]

Vietnam was a tragedy in many ways. Ho Chi Minh loved the United States, wanted to be a US ally. He even offered the US the use of a naval base. However we sacrificed him to keep France happy.

It is sad to say the least. Well at least today relations are good and warming up.

[{II}Sovereign]

we sacrificed him to keep France happy.

This

Time and time again people fail to see this thus failing to fully understand the war but regardless they will say the US are the soulless baby killers they have heard about in all those wild ass tales.

Just another example of why I cant stand modern day frenches, got to miss the french that had backbones ie the France that Napoleon had brought up.

[hellheaven1987]

Just another example of why I cant stand modern day frenches, got to miss the french that had backbones ie the France that Napoleon had brought up.

Did this thread turn into French bash?? Or can we turn it into a French bashed thread??

[Slaytaninc]

Did this thread turn into French bash?? Or can we turn it into a French bashed thread??

I like the later.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

There was no good or bad guy in vietnam.

As usualy communism is championed by the poor, and capitalism by all those who aren't poor. Vietnam contained the same mix of poor and non-poor as any other country. There was a civil war between capitalists (who had an EXTREMELY corrupt dictatorship in vietnam) and communists (Who had leaders popular with most vietnamese).

Even those who weren't communists supported the North because the Southern government was just an unpopular dictator propped up by the US who weren't clear of the situation.

US intervened against communism as part of containment, they thought they were helping, and indeed they were helping against communism. That didn't change the fact that they were propping up a retarded dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem.

US had good intentions regardless of what else you say, although some of their conduct was appalling.

for example, in one operation, 3,000 "vietcong" were killed, but only 279 weapons were found.

Kirov why do you hate the USA?

There was no "good guy" in Vietnam, there were atrocities on all sides. There was, however, a side that was trying to invade their neighbor and a side that was not trying to invade their neighbor. The OP has in the past mixed the two up.

NVA actually conducted themselves better than most US units sadly enough.

[s.rwitt]

NVA actually conducted themselves better than most US units sadly enough.

Most US units? No.

Some US units? Yes.

Even those who weren't communists supported the North because the Southern government was just an unpopular dictator propped up by the US who weren't clear of the situation.

We condoned his assassination...

--------------

To be fair, one could regard the North Vietnamese as a liberation, considering that South Vietnamese peasants, leftists, Buddhists, Montagnards and many others were treated horribly during the reign of Diem, which is basically more than 90% of the South Vietnamese population.

The Montagnards were on our side.

Some liberation. How many "collaborators" did they kill during and after the war? They slaughtered entire villages regularly. They made Mai Lai look like nothing more than a hiccup. And how many of their number did they ever punish for it?

This happened all over the country and was actually to be expected when the North took over a city.

The Massacre at Huế (Thảm sát tại Huế Tết Mậu Thân) is the name given to describe the summary executions and mass killings conducted by the Viet Cong and North Vietnam during their capture, occupation and later withdrawal from the city of Huế during the Tet Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War.


During the months and years that followed the battle[when?], dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Huế containing 2,800 to 6,000 civilians and prisoners of war.[1] Victims were found bound, tortured, and sometimes apparently buried alive.

When you find stories of the US torturing and burying alive 3,000 civilians at a time be sure to let me know.

[Dr. Croccer]

The Montagnards were on our side.

Not really. Diem forcibly relocated 200.000 Vietnamese to Montagnard areas. When they protested their weapons used for hunting for confiscated. There has been a guerilla insurgency by Montagnards ever since.

Some liberation. How many "collaborators" did they kill during and after the war? They slaughtered entire villages regularly. They made Mai Lai look like nothing more than a hiccup. And how many of their number did they ever punish for it?

This happened all over the country and was actually to be expected when the North took over a city.
When you find stories of the US torturing and burying alive 3,000 civilians at a time be sure to let me know.

North Vietnam killed 130.000 South Vietnamese civilians and POWs, of those they directly shot 49.000 civilians. The rest were mostly collatoral and SV military POWs and people involved with the SV government, the latter two were incredibly disliked by most Vietnamese civiliians for good reasons. After the war they executed 100.000 people and nearly 140.000 died in camps. In comparison, the South Vietnamese killed 89.000 South Vietnamese civilians, the vast majority political enemies and such, and forcibly relocated over 2 million people and interned and imprisoned easily over 600.000 people. The Americans killed 90.000 South Vietnamese, mostly due to colletoral damage.

Now those of North Vietnam. 50.000 executed by the North, and Rolling Thunder killed nearly 180.000.

That's about 350.000 innocent civilians for North Vietnam killed directly by them, and 360.000 for the Americans and South Vietnam, with millions (forcibly) displaced by their hand and hundreds of thousands imprisoned or interned.

The reason the North was perceived to be good by many Vietnamese was again because the vast majority of Vietnamese were left alone by them. Those 350.000 killed were really just barely 1% of the total Vietnamese population, most of those that were were viewed as traitors as they had openly supported the South Vietnamese regime. In comparison, over 2 million Vietnamese were forcibly relocated by the South, and nearly a million imprisoned or interned. The vast majority of the South Vietnamese population, easily over 90% were horribly treated.

[Nikitn]

Uhh, what kind of spam is that, s.rwitt? proof?

[s.rwitt]

Uhh, what kind of spam is that, s.rwitt? proof?

There are four different points in that post Nikitin. What the hell are you asking proof of?


-----------------

Now, I'm no commie but let's be honest South Vietnamese government lost all of it's legitimation when they screwed the democratic system, killed innocent civilians and persecuted people because of their personal beliefs.
The problem for the USA comes form allying itself with a state in order to stop other that was backed by soviet sponsored communism, which at the same time would not have needed to resort to their(Soviets) help if they weren't being ed by the western nations(France and USA).

You guys know how Diem died right?

[Claudius Gothicus]

You guys know how Diem died right?

Doesn't change the fact that he received support from previous administrations, and that after his assassination the country was ruled by a succession of (US Backed)Military Dictatorships, and last time I checked Military Dictatorships are not 'that nice' to the people' rights.