Cold War

Overall, sounds like a relatively minor casualty and fatality number to me.

 

I have no doubt that it will. I was born in a free society where people are free to express themselves, where the news was not controlled by the state and people were not afraid to hold unpopular opinions.

You presume too much regarding your knowledge of my opinions.

Of course things would be better in Vietnam. The people would have personal freedom and economic freedom. They would be free to make of themselves whatever they were capable of being rather than being slaves to the state and the party apparatus. Instead of beginning to become part of the industrialized world in the 21st century they would have a 40 year head start and could have been the pearl of Indochina..or they could continue with a failed and discredited system like the North koreans while their people eat bark off the trees.

As to the people of the US doing wrong; of course they have. For one example they participated in the institution brought by the European (and Arabs and Africans) known as human slavery.
They did eventually rid themselves of its bonds though it took a war and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans before it was done.

 

Motive doesn't matter? How about the damage to the Netherlands during the war, or to France and Belgium? If motive doesn't matter should we be begging the forgiveness of the liberated Europeans as well?

I'm not sure if the question is whether he is pro-American enough for me or whether his posts are anti-American enough for you.

 

I am the one with the unpopular opinion here Grieg, not you... So don't go implying that my opinions are the product of propaganda and state control. You wouldn't hear my point of view being broadcasted on CNN or Fox news, yet opinions like yours are a dime-a-dozen...

As for Vietnam, what good is economic freedom when your country does not have an economy? what good is personal freedom when there are no jobs? For impoverished and war ravaged countries like 1960's Vietnam, sometimes control and state responsibiliy is the only way to get society up and running. Then and only then, certain freedoms may be granted... But many countries have far too many problems to worry about freedom. An Iraqi farmer is not going to even care about his right to free speech until the problems of him getting shot and his family starving are resolved. You can't have freedom without first having saftey and control, and not very many countries are as safe and orderly as America.

Grieg, do you think it is alright to restrict someone's right to free-speech if their perspective is not pro-American?

 

Absolutely not. The question is merely an attempt to goad me. I challenge you to find a comment by me on these forums advocating anything less than near absolute freedom of speech and expression.

 

Do you honestly think the damage done in the process of liberating the Netherlands was at all comparable to the damage of five years of Nazi oppression? Without the Allied effort, this occupation may have never come to and end at all, and the Dutch may have been assimilated with the mindless thinned-out populations of the Great Aryan Empire. Of course we thank the Allies for their efforts, but we thank them because of the results of their actions, not because of their intentions and motives.

In Vietnam, the US spent years tearing up the country and killing millions of Vietnamese in an effort to rid the country of Communism. In itself this motive may be noble (if we forget for one second that the majority of the Vietnamese people were in favour of Communism, so a democratic election would also have brought the Communists to power) but the implications of their struggle make it a lot harder to see the US as good in hindsight. Forgiving is all about hindsight and effects rather than motives, don't you think?

Peace and Communism will be preferrable to most people over war and a promise of future Democracy. Us westerners would be inclined to fight for our freedoms more vigorously but in Asia at the time there was no such tradition and no desire to side explicitly with the Capitalist West. Hence the American efforts were American, their motives lost on the Vietnamese people and the damages incomprehensibly vast. Forgiving that is quite hard IMO.

Do you see what I mean? I am not trying to say that Communism is good (which you always seem to equate me with for taking a more moderate position on the matter) or that America is bad, but for the Vietnamese it seems to me to be quite hard to forgive the US from their point of view.

 

I haven't changed my position that there is nothing to forgive. We tried to help the Vietnamese, not to destroy them or to subjugate them. I think that many Vietnamese realize this and that "forgiveness" which you and Smeg attribute to magnanimity on their part is a reflection of that realization. America sent it's sons off to a distant land many of them to never return in order to help a people that had nothing valuable that we desired , nothing like oil, nothing that could be used by those who always wish to impugn our motives.
Doesn't stop them from trying though.

 

Grieg wrote:

The only dogma I have read thus far is this, IMO. Had France not continued to maintain its overseas colonies despite the fact that France and all of Europe were in economic ruin, there would have been no humiliation at Dien Bien Phu, there would be no demarcation and subsequent struggle for reunification in Vietnam, and it is doubtful that the US would have gotten itself so tangled up in South East Asia. Without the French presence in the late 40's and early 50's, I doubt the US would have interfered in Vietnam to the extent of an all-out war. Had the United States not involved itself in the middle of a civil war, Vietnam would not have been so devastated. This 'had not' thing could probably go on for days.

Also, the Vietnamese were no Chinese proxy; you would offend a lot of Vietnamese by suggesting such. History between those two countries is long, repressive, and brutal, and the two countries are very different. I believe Vietnam has tried hard to distance itself from its gigantic northern neighbor. Of course North Vietnam accepted aide from China during the Vietnam War (but AFAIK most support and advisors came from Russia) but they were given no other choice for a war they saw as a fight for the survival of Vietnam and its people. In any case, it was no more than 4 years after the US left South Vietnam that a reunified, communist Vietnam had a war with China. This, to me, does not seem like the types of relations between good friends. Saying that Vietnam was a proxy to China is comparable to saying China was a proxy to Russa.

This belief that Vietnam was a Chinese proxy may be a reason for why the Vietnam War was so long and America's aims were not achieved. McNamara and all those other equally qualified politicians theorized that any major military incursion into North Vietnam would instantly bring the Chinese into the war; just as China had in the Korean War. Nixon shot down part of this theory with Operations Linebacker I & II. If US ground forces were given the authority to march straight to Hanoi, Thieu might be running Vietnam as I write this.

 

Whether the Vietnamese felt that way or not from China's standpoint Vietnam was a proxy just as it was from the Soviets viewpoint. It was a Cold War proxy fight. An ideological struggle. They weren't fighting FOR the Vietnamese so much as AGAINST the US IMO.

 

I see the Vietnam War as a continuing indigenous conflict against colonialism facaded with bipolar ideologies so that two visible sides could be drawn and a higher purpose served. Independece for Vietnam was always the goal; installing a communist government came second. As I see it, there were two things the Vietnamese could do in the years following the Second World War: first they could continue to subject themselves under French rule while other countries, like India, are granted their independence; or they could resort to allying itself with the colonial powers' archnemisis, the Soviet Union. The Vietnamese were tired of foreign rule, and to them the West appeared as oppresive tyrants and the Soviet Union as an altruistic friend. For the Vietnamese the choice was not a difficult one to make.

So whilst in many ways I do see it as a proxy war between the Soviet Union/China and the United States, I see it more as a fight for the independece of Vietnam and its people. It is just unfortunate that the US did not see the same and skip the bloodbath that that war became. Now that Vietnam is independent, and has been so for more than 30 years, they do not want trouble; they do not want war with the US. Vietnam has want it wants: a home to call its own.

But please continue with the discussion you guys were having before I so rudely interupted and changed the subject.

 

Not only is that comment patronising, it is also wrong... I am not in any way exemplefying socialism/communism as a good thing... You seem to have me picked out to be a card-carrying-commie but you'll find on most issues I am quite right wing. What I AM purporting in my comments upon Vietnam, the one you have misread; is that state-control is a good thing when used responsibly. Society needs to have laws and restrictions to function properly, even if those laws have limiting effects upon certain freedoms. While individual freedom should not be restricted by communism (or any other political motive ofr that matter ) it is perfectly allowable in my mind to deny freedom in the name of law, safety and security...
Freedom comes after saftey; and sometimes it is necessary to limit one's rights in order to protect both themselves and others. Jail being a simple example of this; do you agree with that?

 

No, we can clearly see that you are no Communist sympathizer or apologist *cough* most likely a diehard Capitalist

As to having some better insight into Communism because of being born in a (former) Warsaw Pact country I don't see much relevance when one considers that you were born in ..what? 1987?
I was born in 1953 as the Cold War was heating up. My childhood was colored by the very real possibilty of a nuclear war I remember the Cuban missle crisis of October 1962. Though quite young I remember filling the bathtub with water for emergency use, putting away can goods, watching the news and keeping the television on for breaking news (in the days before 24 hour news networks and of course the internet).Having been raised in Florida we were well acquainted with Cuban refugees who had fled Cuba. Later after joinging the Marines in 1970 I knew quite well several escapees from Communist countries who had joined the US military.
I don't know where you are getting your information from regarding the former Soviet Union nor for that matter what you know about the US but I do think that at 19 years of age one is quite susceptible to propoganda and easily influenced. I not only remember being young myself but I am raising 2 sons one a teenager and the other a young adult. No doubt Roel and some of the other youngsters on this forum will take issue with my opinions regarding the young that but then that is to be expected, that is what teenagers do; educate their clueless elders inasmuch as they possess infinite wisdom themselves

 

Well although I am flattered that you dug deep into the archives for those two posts where i listed my age just to show me up I'm forced to agree with you there...
There's no use arguing with old people when they pull out the "age and wisdom" card

As for my succeptibilty to propoganda, i do now live in Australia... where, if anything, the propoganda swings the other way...
oh well I'm young, a few more years and I'll change my mind about everything :smok:

 

Also Grieg, something you might find quite funny
When I moved to Australia as a child I was initially not allowed to watch 'Sesame Street' because it was too American

 

I do object against your opinions on the young, Grieg, because it seems quite a rude generalization that doesn't really apply. You know as well as I do that some of the young people on this forum are just as knowledgeable as most of the older ones and their opinions tend to be as balanced as those of the "elders". On the other hand you'll find ignorance and susceptibility to propaganda among all ages and levels of experience with life.

Personally, I am a student of history on Leiden University, and I take my facts from the handbooks and professors' lectures I recieve there. My opinions are my own, but I think their foundation is relatively solid. On the other hand, we (the younger students) have been explicitly warned by our professors that older attendees of lectures on the Cold War will tend to be highly emotionally involved in the subject, to the point where they lose all sight of the truth as they relive their old fears and experiences. Human memory, in short, is as much if not more flawed than the "propaganda" that us young minds rely on. I am not saying that you're misremembering your whole life and that you dreamed up the Communist threat, I'm merely pointing out that two generations tend to see the Cold War in very different lights and one is not, as you suggest, inherently more true than the other.

You equate Communism with Nazism so easily because you know they both worked out roughly comparably: tyrannical dicators oppressing and murdering vast amounts of people, most of them virtually enslaved by the state. You won't find me denying this fact anywhere, ever. However, there is also the fact that Communism held a great deal of appea in large parts of the world for those who wanted to take a different path than the West or those who wanted to explicitly distance themselves from the West - i.e. the recently decolonized countries. For these countries, Communism or a mixed and independent form of planned economies and societies was the way to go. They felt little or no desire to join either the USA and Capitalism or the Soviet Union and International-style Communism; but their educated upper and middle classes vastly preferred an adaptation of the latter. This is why we can't see the Vietnam war as Good trying to bring Good to Vietnam and driving out Evil, with the cheering support of the locals of course.

 

Roel:
Some of the most liberal and socialistic attitudes are found on a University campus. It is certainly true at the University I work for.
Living in a state that considers itself--and votes--conservative, we are the exception to that rule. We sometimes "kid" and refer to our town as the "Socialist State of Bloomington."
Most college professors tend to teach THEIR view of the world, and many times their opinions are quite skewed. Problem is--as I discovered in college--you must decide if you are in pursuit of the truth, or just good grades. Also keep in mind--at least in the United States--that most prominent professors write and publish their own textbooks, which are of course then used as the basis of fact for their classroom discussions.
I've known a few college professors that not only lost sight of the truth... but reality as well, so I would take your professors' comments about "Cold War Survivors" insights being biased, emotionally charged and inaccurate with a "grain-of-salt." Question everything, and don't rely on HIS SOURCES for confirmation of fact.

As a child of the "Cold War"--as is Grieg--I can identify with much of what he has posted. While the threat of nuclear holocaust might have been overstated, we certainly believed the threat to be real. We practised drills in grade-school, like the "duck & cover" drill. We had bomb-shelters in case of nuclear attack, and radioactive symbols were well-known by the general populace.

In general I think the younger members here are equally crazy about history, and all aspects of military operations, equipment and tactics... as I am. If inaccuracies are posted, most are debunked and the poster corrected on his facts and assumptions. We not only inform others of facts, but we learn as well. Just one of the reasons I tend to like this place.

Tim

 

I would never claim to have infinite wisdom, and neither would I claim you to be stupid at all. I have been brought up to respect and treat those who are older than me with respect, but I have also been brought up to say and do what I think is right, no matter who my opponent may be. Facts can be objectively agreed on, but the conclusion we draw from the is subjective and product of our knowledge, experience, and personality. And thus we may find ourselves in severe disagreement, but I don't think that is a reason not to respect someone.

What I don't understand is why people draw the "older and wiser" card in a debate instead of using real arguments. It's not ad hominem, but it is irrelevant - a truth is a truth, no matter who utters it. A good argument stands, even if it was written by a teenager. Why focus on the fact that we are young? None of us have the complete authority to prove that the other side is completely wrong.

If you think that we are drawing the wrong conclusions (age, media influence, history) then show us yours! Tell us what you think instead of insulting us by saying that we are too young or influenced by propoganda. You have shifted my view before, and there have been many moments on this forum when I have changed my opinion and found out that I was wrong. But not by someone ever pulling the "older and wiser" card.

/Rant over :lol:

 

I admit that my knowledge of the Vietnam conflict is rather poor, so correct me if I am wrong.

The war in Vietnam cannot be compared to the liberation of Europe for a number of reasons. First of all, the Netherlands, France, Belgium etc. were invaded by a clearly foreign power, and then liberated by a foreign power. Holland, for example:

There were no Dutch (with the exception of some volunteers, which are/were seen as traitors by the majority) fighting for the Germans against the Americans. Americans did not kill Dutchmen, there was no Dutch My Lai, no Agent Orange on Dutch forests et cetera. The allies liberated Holland and helped build it up. Vietnam was trashed during the war in a very different way. The US deliberately targeted Vietnamese people and interests in the war. They did not do this in Europe. I can understand that an average blue-collar Vietnamese person of the time did not think much of Americas involvement. In Full Metal Jacket (one of your favorite movies) they talk about how the Vietnamese don't appreciate US involvement. Do you think they should have?

Proxy war or not, many Vietnamese were devasted because of Americas actions. I think it is quite civilized for a nation to forgive this. In many ways, Norway has still not forgiven Germany, and their occupation was a cakewalk compared to the Vietnam war!

Hope that made sense...

 

Did you read the entire thread? If you did then you are aware that age was a significant issue, in this case. Smeg wanted to claim some higher authority due to his having been born in a Warsaw Pact (Soviet satellite) country.
Inasmuch as I happened to be reading the intro threadand I noticed his age I could hardly fail to point it out.
Since he could not have experienced firsthand living in a communist country I brought up the difference in our ages. I shouldn't have to explain all this over again though as it should be apparent why age became an issue. I don't claim that living through the Cold War makes one an expert on Cold War politics or issues but then I wasn't even the one that brought up where one lives or was born was I?

 

Again I wonder if you read the entire thread. The liberation of Europe was mentioned in one context only; referring to the damage done to and lives lost by the people of Europe that were being liberated. Many non-Axis European cities were bombed and civilians killed in order to defeat the Germans. My analogy referred to the culpability of the liberators.

I'm quite certain you are wrong about this. Dutch people were killed as battles were fought in their country. Houses and indeed villages weree destroyed by bombing and artillery, innocent people were inadvertanly killed.

The US deliberately targeted innocent civilians in Vietnam as a matter of policy? I don't think so. As in all wars there were some individuals who went beyond the pale and acted as criminals. The numbers were small despite what popular movies and books would have you believe and I'm aware of no US policy of targeting innocent civilians. Perhaps you can correct me on this point?

This gets back to the issue that was being discussed. Should the people who were being liberated (or attempted) have cause to "forgive" their liberators (or attempted liberators)?