Vietnam.

Kaiser wrote:

No worries mate. I'm not angry or upset.
Don't assume that because I see the facts of the conflict in Vietnam differently that you do that I necessarily think it was wise for the US to get involved. In fact I avoid stating my opinion on that because in hindsight it is too easy to conclude the obvious..it was futile and wasteful.

 

I know this is some posts ago, but I imagine Kaiser is refering to the Tonkin Gulf incident and the "political manuevoring" used by LBJ to get the United States into the war.

Very true, but the fact is, the change to capatalism only works for a powerful, already well-established country, ie Germany, France, Britain, Japan, etc. For a 3rd world country, this is much to difficult; weak domestic resources that cannot compete with the tariffs and trade laws of developed countries, long memories of oppresion, occupation, and colonization, majority of population living in rural areas, and wide and varied ethnicity and consensus among that population makes the transformation to a free-market, capatialist society damn near impossible.

Indeed. This is because so little was known and so much was assumed about the NVA/VC's intentions, goals, leadership, support, and the list can go on. I believe Sun Tzu says you must know your enemy before you fight him.

 

Zhukov wrote:

Read the post. Actually he was assuming that the US had promised elections and reneged. He changed his mind after I pointed out that neither the US nor the government of the South had signed the elections clause of the accords.

The change to capitalism in the US and Europe didn't occur recently. They weren't nearly so powerful or well established at the time. You have it backwards in some respects..the western nations cannot compete with the developing nations in labor costs...cheap capital costs etc. That's why most of the manufacturing has shifted to developing countries. Nobody said the transition would be easy or painless. Things worth acheiving seldom are...what are their alternatives for the long run?

 

In respect to most other countries, they were. These countries had the industry (or at least a developing industry) with the exception of Japan, for some time anyways.

That is very true, but the price and quality strongly reflect these operating costs. Merely by exploiting a country (ugly term, but can't think of one better) for its cheaper land, labour, and capital is not going to rise it out of 3rd status. You know this of course, but the only point I'm trying to make is that most 3rd World countries have little to none of the facilities ready to raise its economic standing.

Ah, my apologises. Diving into the middle of a conversation is not wise if one has not bothered to read all the surrounding material.

Ok, in that case, is there any feeling that had the United States and South Vietnam signed the accord, and with a much stricter implimentation of the promised election process, could the whole Vietnam War been prevented? The VC, as I believe was mentioned earlier, was a direct response to Diem's refusal to permit elections, and had the election been forced and fairly supervised by all the Geneva Accord nations, the VC would have lost, so to speak, one of its legs.

 

Zhukov wrote:

Isn't that what China and to a lesser extent India are doing? Cheap labor and capital give them a competitive edge in the marketplace compared to developed countries. That contributed to Taiwan's success also.

 

yeh it did sound that it might of turned into a fist fight if they where with each other

 

I think Grieg is referring to the great examples of early capitalism, the Netherlands and England. These were the first to abandon the then-common theory of mercantilism and open their borders to free trade instead, which made them rich and powerful; they were also arguably the most free in terms of "political freedom" though that is very relative to their time. The examples you give are those of countries that discovered their own backwardness as compared to the great powers of their day (France and England mostly) and worked to catch up by applying what they needed to their country through an autocratic system. This also worked but its development was not as balanced as that of the West.

 

Actually,after revising for my A'levels, Viet minh was in fact a coalition of political parties and never communist.....it was a nationalism process which the US and French intervened on.

 

Originally it wasn't Communist. It came to include Communists and other Nationalist groups as a coalition and it was eventually dominated by Communists. In 1951 the Communists became part of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

 

But you fail to take into account that early nationalist are drawn to communism not because they like the idea,but because they actually do something.Also if you notice,it was frustration at the lack of progress constitutional methods had got them that pushed them to socialism. Most of the nationalists in the communist party was sadly,not convicted communists at all. So though it was dominated by communist,it is still debatable that it was still a nationalist effort

 

kaiser wrote:

If a man voluntarily drinks poison does it really matter whether or not he likes the taste?

 

In Ancient korea and China,poison were flavoured and enhanced to bring out the effects faster...so in answer to your question grieg...yes. And besides, using this same example,why should someone care if another is taking poison?(vietnam embracing communism.)

But the thing is,it is quite biased to call communism poison. I don't like communist ideas,but it does appeal. And as i have said,communism at that time in southeast asia was the only party that could take and produce results(sometimes disastrous tho)

 

kaiser wrote:

One of the stated aims of Communism is the overthrow of Capitalism worldwide. I don't mind if my neighbor takes poison but I do mind if he poisons the community water supply in order to take his poison.

I make no claims to being unbiased about all things. A man who claims he has no bias is a liar or a fool at the least or totally unprincipled at the worst.
I think the idea of Communism isn't appealing in the least.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?

 

No i haven't read it,what is it about?

"You occasionally cross the line from what appears to be objective opinion to biased advocacy." If i am not wrong,this was what you said to me grieg. And now in the same spirit that you have said this,i ask that you not lose sight of objectivity.

Anyway,our poison analogy is going to go nowhere,i will come up with more counter-arguments and you will counter those arguments.Shall we come back to the business at hand? Yes it was the aim that threatened US the most,that of destroying capitalism worldwide,and i admit i do not like that aim. But still,Vietnam's initial struggle was for independence under a communist system,but we capitalist took that as a threat and stepped in with major US military support. Of course it was a threat that should be well looked at,but even the presidential advisor,Clark Clifford admitted," what we thought to be the spread of communist agression in Vietnam seems very clearly to have been a civil war " Of course this was said in hindsight and the US could never know. But do you not agree that the US Army should have understood about the nature of this conflict before sending in their armed forces?

 

Since Vietnamese communism, and generally the communism embraced by pretty much any post-colonial country, was really a nationalistically inspired refusal to adopt Western capitalism, I don't think the threat of world revolution would come from Vietnamese communists. US leaders of the day ahould have realized this, but I guess that's all hindsight.

 

Hear Hear!

 

Roel wrote:

Yes, as it turned out Communism was a bankrupt philosophical dead end.
Also as you pointed out, that is all hindsight

 

[/quote]

True.
Back then many in the west were very preoccupied that more and more former colonies could go the path of communism, and it was not always easy to understand the local subtilities.The fact that Ho Chi Minh was a communist heavy weight did not make things any bether....

 

Yes Grieg,but isn't this what we argue about?Hindsight. We discuss over whether Hitler felt remorse,tanks in other forums and this is also hindsight,so don't you agree that in hindsight,the US Army shouldn't be in Vietnam? Of course at the actual event,they did not benefit from hindsight.But surely us as posterity should right something "wrong" ?

 

kaiser wrote:

It's about the things we are discussing..the philosophy of Capitalism versus Communism, the rights of individuals versus the state etc. only it's in the form of fiction so as to not be too didactic and dull.
You should read it.

Touche However if one is clear that what he is stating is opinion rather than objective fact then bias is not only allowed but it is inevitable. A historian (as opposed to a poltical or philosophical commentator) has a duty to be as objective in his assessments as is possible.

I did not ever claim that the Vietnam war was wise policy for the US, in fact I personally believe that it was a mistake. Of course the outcome makes that determination easy to make.
My debate has been mostly about broad genealizations regarding the US motives for entering the conflict.