European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Admiral Yi]

You lost, at best you abandoned an ally to further other interests - you didn't pack up and go home, 'Mission accomplished'. 

No shit.  What does this have to do you with your previous comment?

Ok, grubby imperial war, but one that followed very shortly on from a colonial war except with the Americans instead of the French.

Again, how was it an imperial war?  Imperial wars are fought to aquire territory, subjugate states, plant colonies.  Not very different from colonial wars.

[Razgovory]

I echo Yi's statements and questions (see Yi, I agree with you sometimes).

[Josquius]

Surprised people here are actually using the term "imperialism".  You guys are social democrats, not Marxists.

Well, there are two imperialisms.
There's the stupid marxist 'imperialism!11' yi mentioned then there is actual imperialism. It is pretty valid to see the Vietnam war as just an outgrowth of the decolonisation wars that ended the age of imperialism.

[jimmy olsen]

No it wasn't.  Britain's common ploy in India was to offer support to a local Raj in return for subject status and then annex the common enemy too.  Britain didn't gain an empire by defending victims of aggression then packing up and going home.

You lost, at best you abandoned an ally to further other interests - you didn't pack up and go home, 'Mission accomplished'. 

That was the plan if we won. It's not like we were going to annex S. Vietnam and install a colonial governor if we won.

[Neil]

Surprised people here are actually using the term "imperialism".  You guys are social democrats, not Marxists.

Well, there are two imperialisms.
There's the stupid marxist 'imperialism!11' yi mentioned then there is actual imperialism. It is pretty valid to see the Vietnam war as just an outgrowth of the decolonisation wars that ended the age of imperialism.

Not at all valid, but it is easy if you're not discerning enough.

[Zoupa]

These days, most euros don't think about the vietnam war or care very much.

That being said, it was a stupid and pointless venture, which had much more to do about not losing face vs the USSR than anything else.

[Razgovory]

I guess I should clarify that it shouldn't be limited to European views on the American involvement on October 8th 2012, but European views at the time and in general.  The answers I've gotten is that it was imperialism, with out much elaborations as to why or what that means in this context, and that the US used chemical defoliates and strategic and tactical bombing (presumably if the US didn't use either one everything would be hunky dory).

[Zanza]

The US fought the war to keep South East Asia from turning communist (Domino theory) and thus falling into the Soviet sphere of influence. It didn't fight for the South Vietnamese, but for its own grostrategic interests, namely to keep a friendly regime in place. That's not the 19th century imperialism you guys have in mind but is still considered imperialist in this part of Europe at least. I know you Americans don't like that perception, but you asked for our view.

[Syt]

In Germany the height of the Vietnam protests came during a time of great social upheaval. Germany had a grand coalition of conservatives and social democrats at the time with the libertarians forming a 6% opposition. There were plans to introduce laws that would allow the government to enact basically martial law in case of emergencies - there was huge public opposition against the situation from university students. At the same time, the first post-war generations were starting to ask uneasy questions about their parents' involvement in the Third Reich.

Protesting against the Vietnam War was another way of showing the finger to the establishment.

The pictures of violence and destruction or of North Vietnamese claims how the civilian population suffered from American bombings made this an easy topic to take up and stick it to the man.

[Sheilbh]

No shit.  What does this have to do you with your previous comment?

Packing up and going home implies good faith from the start, which I don't think can be assumed.  Maintaining a military presence in the region and supporting a corrupt, unpopular, repressive regime whose help you have in the region is imperialism.  It's not that dissimilar from the British use of the Maharajahs.  The only real difference I can see is that the US didn't encourage the North Vietnamese.

Again, how was it an imperial war?  Imperial wars are fought to aquire territory, subjugate states, plant colonies.  Not very different from colonial wars.

That's a very narrow definition and one I'd attach more to colonialism.  It would exclude, for example, European imperialism in much of the Middle East and China during the 19th century.  So actually I disagree with Zanza.  I think the geostrategic imperialism was a very 19th century concern.  19th century empire building was as much about the Great Game in Persia and Central Asia and the Pashas in Egypt as it was the white settlers in Kenya.  The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them.

I guess I should clarify that it shouldn't be limited to European views on the American involvement on October 8th 2012, but European views at the time and in general.  The answers I've gotten is that it was imperialism, with out much elaborations as to why or what that means in this context, and that the US used chemical defoliates and strategic and tactical bombing (presumably if the US didn't use either one everything would be hunky dory).

As I say I think a lot of it was to do with a generational culture war in Europe.  There was one within the left to do with the rise of the New Left.  And there was a wider culture war against the post-war order, of which the Atlantic alliance and a certain pro-Americanism was a key part.

[dps]

The issue people had with Vietnam was more with the American methods than their helping South Vietnam.

Well, I have an issue with the way we fought the Vietnam War, too, but I don't think that my view of how it should have been done differently is in line with European views.

[Capetan Mihali]

I think there might be a kind of inexplicable divide in terms of how people interpret "imperialism" or "colonialism."  The version of conquering land or establishing trading entrepots has is certainly imperialism, but it denies the imperialism that plays out in daily life and perhaps more importantly, in the definition of what is a credible argumentative position.

[Syt]

I do think, though, that the Vietnam War and how it was fought presented did a lot over here to enforce the picture of an America that will do anything to enforce its interests, and put their stamp on other countries whether they like it or not. This came up again during the arms race of the 80s, when Germans rose en masse to protest against the stationing of new nuclear missiles in their country*, and most recently with GWB and the Iraq War, and its still a prevalent image in certain circles.

*In fact, after Kohl took power in '82 he was ready to say 'no' to the Americans about that because of the pressure, and he had to be brought back in line by Washington.

[Sheilbh]

That's interesting I thought that the anti-Vietnam protests in Germany was the start of what became the 80s peace movements and, I think, the Greens (and to a lesser extent?) the Left.  While in the UK they drew on the older CND campaign but also student radicalism - I think Daniel Cohn-Bendit came to the UK to speak at anti-war protests.

[Viking]

I think the Imperialist label stems not so much from american actions but rather from the internal problems of European societies dealing with their own histories and political ideologies.

The Soviets called everybody who wan't a socialist an imperialist. Period. People with sympathies for the Eastern Bloc were always going to call whatever the US did Imperialist because the US was the enemy of the USSR and the enemy of Communism (in the minds of communists) was Imperialism and Fascism. Anybody wishing to get along with sympathizers of the eastern bloc would have to adopt that language as well.

The Europeans did do Imperialism. It just is easier to come to terms with crimes in your past by convincing yourself that everybody is just as bad. In a sense, the more vile and disgusting the imperialism carried out by your European country the more anti-american your country was after 1968. The more willing your country was to justify it's imperialism as benign the more likely it was to be pro american. It redeems the sins of your past to see those sins omitted today and fought against today.

It just isn't imperialism when your goal is to establish a functioning legitimate democratic government. That was the policy of the US during decolonization and it was the policy of the US after decolonization. You can argue the morality of supporting a dictator to prevent the communists from taking power; but you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.