Bush, Dole or Nixon?

[geoffrey]

Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon fought a war to "contain" the Soviets and the war was successful. My God, the deaths were not in vain. We should all be grateful for what ordinary Americans did in Vietnam.

Er...Vietnam had nothing to do with the Soviets per se (you're confusing symbols and reality: bad August!).

Thats quite a technically your leaning on BD. Using Soviet supplied arms, planes and training is a clear message that the Soviets were completely involved in Vietnam.

Not to mention they were communist.

[Black Dog]

Thats quite a technically your leaning on BD. Using Soviet supplied arms, planes and training is a clear message that the Soviets were completely involved in Vietnam.

Not to mention they were communist.

But the Vietnam question predated the Cold War struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Ho Chi Minh was staging guerrilla actions against the Japanese while FDR and Stalin were shaking hands. Chances are he would have kept up the fight without the Soviet's help ("It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me."-Ho Chi Minh). So, one can recognize the U.S. intervention was sparked by the struggle against communism, one can't claim (as August does) that Vietnam was a successful war because it contained Soviet influence when that factor was tangential to the conflict.

[shoop]

You are kidding right? Ho couldn't have kept up the fight without the Soviet's help. He had the people, but that is it. Without the Soviets help Ho couldn't have kept up the fight. Were the VCs supposed to attack with rocks and slingshots?

But the Vietnam question predated the Cold War struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Ho Chi Minh was staging guerrilla actions against the Japanese while FDR and Stalin were shaking hands. Chances are he would have kept up the fight without the Soviet's help ("It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me."-Ho Chi Minh). So, one can recognize the U.S. intervention was sparked by the struggle against communism, one can't claim (as August does) that Vietnam was a successful war because it contained Soviet influence when that factor was tangential to the conflict.

[August1991]

But the Vietnam question predated the Cold War struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Ho Chi Minh was staging guerrilla actions against the Japanese while FDR and Stalin were shaking hands. Chances are he would have kept up the fight without the Soviet's help ("It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me."-Ho Chi Minh). So, one can recognize the U.S. intervention was sparked by the struggle against communism, one can't claim (as August does) that Vietnam was a successful war because it contained Soviet influence when that factor was tangential to the conflict.

The Left finally got McNamara to say that from the North Vietnamese perspective, the war was a "struggle for national reconciliation" or some such. That may well be. Ho wanted to be independent of the Japanese and the French. (And I guess Mao wanted to kick the Japanese out too.)

First, Ho and Mao were extreme Leftists - communists. Second, the Soviets used these "struggles of national reconciliation" to further their intention for, wait for it, world domination. As Khrushchev said, "We will bury you." And he meant it. To the extent that the Soviets had an ideology, they thought that history was on their side. (The Soviet politburo might better be viewed as a gang of mafioso - they viewed Vietnam as a turf war.)

The case of Castro is illustrative. Castro met Vice-President Nixon in 1959 in New York before Cuba went officially over to the Soviets. They talked baseball, and Nixon came away with a clear idea about who Castro was. There was no question of the Americans getting along with Castro.

----

The modern extreme Left who inhabit Internet forums and academia are complete orphans now. Before 1991, they could quibble with but secretly (and foolishy) admire the Soviet thugs who, in their view, stood up to the fat cat Americans.

Ho, Castro, FRELIMO and the other so-called national liberators were of a similar ilk in the Third World. They were leftists, ideologically aligned and materially supported by the Soviets.

The Vietnam War was a major battle in the 40 year Cold War. Does anyone remember who won the Battle of the Somme? But everyone knows that Germany lost the First World War.

[Black Dog]

You are kidding right? Ho couldn't have kept up the fight without the Soviet's help. He had the people, but that is it. Without the Soviets help Ho couldn't have kept up the fight. Were the VCs supposed to attack with rocks and slingshots?

How successful he would have been is immaterial. The point is the Vietnam conlict was a nationalist one, not, as the "containment" advocates contend, a global one.

The Left finally got McNamara to say that from the North Vietnamese perspective, the war was a "struggle for national reconciliation" or some such. That may well be. Ho wanted to be independent of the Japanese and the French. (And I guess Mao wanted to kick the Japanese out too.)

First, Ho and Mao were extreme Leftists - communists. Second, the Soviets used these "struggles of national reconciliation" to further their intention for, wait for it, world domination. As Khrushchev said, "We will bury you." And he meant it. To the extent that the Soviets had an ideology, they thought that history was on their side. (The Soviet politburo might better be viewed as a gang of mafioso - they viewed Vietnam as a turf war.)

Vietnam may have been an expression of the Soviet belief (later articulated in the Brezhnev Doctrine) in the need for unity among socialist states. But both Cold War adversaries came late to the party. The Soviet Union began its military support of the North Vietnamese after the Americans began their's for the south (1965). The record suggests several instances of Soviet neglect or betrayal of Vietnamese interests. These included Moscow's failure to recognize North Vietnam until five years after its founding; failure to support Vietnam's application for membership in the UN in 1948 and 1951; support for the partitioning of Vietnam at the Geneva Conference in 1954; and other slighst and oversights that suggeste dindifference on the part of the Soviets towards the Vietnamese.

My point here is that viewing Vietnam through the lense of the Cold War is a flawed excersise on the basis that, had both Cold War superpowers stayed out of the situation, the conflict would have proceeded on its own course.

[August1991]

The record suggests several instances of Soviet neglect or betrayal of Vietnamese interests. These included Moscow's failure to recognize North Vietnam until five years after its founding; failure to support Vietnam's application for membership in the UN in 1948 and 1951; support for the partitioning of Vietnam at the Geneva Conference in 1954; and other slighst and oversights that suggeste dindifference on the part of the Soviets towards the Vietnamese.

My point here is that viewing Vietnam through the lense of the Cold War is a flawed excersise on the basis that, had both Cold War superpowers stayed out of the situation, the conflict would have proceeded on its own course.

On the contrary, these are all consistent with Stalin's and then the Politburo's intention of dominating the world.

Prior to 1954, a UN Vietnam would have been a French puppet. Partition was an admission of victory, and the Soviets would have accepted much less in Greece.

The movie 'The Fog of War', modern Leftism (and even your post BD) somehow imply that the Americans should have worked with Ho and recognized his struggle as merely one of "national liberation". Sorry, it wasn't. Neither was Castro's. Ho and Castro were Communists and wanted to advance the cause of the dictatorship of the proletariat and all that. It was impossible for the Americans to get along with these people. Their connivance and alliance with the Soviets made them genuine threats to the Free World.

True, like Leftists everywhere, they argued amongst themselves which may give the impression that some were "non-Soviet" or "not Communist". But the Soviets demanded a form of loyalty comparable to the Hell's Angels, while tolerating waywardness.

The domino theory stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia would follow. Well, Laos and Cambodia did "go" Communist. Thailand was the winner of the Vietnam War. The Thais never had to put up with the tragedy (and nonsense) of Communism.

Malaysia? The British fought Communist insurgents in Malaysia after the war, defeated them and then oversaw Malaysian independence (and division). I have heard it argued that the French and Americans bungled the fight against communism in Vietnam because they treated it as a war, and not a police action - which is how the British dealt with Malaysian communists.

I think that America should deal with terrorism as a police and not a military matter stem from this experience.