European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Martinus]

No, I'm saying that the this is what the average European thinks.

Well, I'm inclined to agree with Tim that the average European will either have never heard the term or forgotten its significance. Quite a few Americans as well.

That does not mean they are not vaguely familiar with facts behind the name.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Yes.  A hypocritical view for a lot of them. If the US is to be castigated for events taht happened in the past so should Spain, Portugal, and a number of other nations.

1)  You're stupid for thinking that hypocrisy is a bad thing.
2)  There are no people on Earth who feel more shame for their history and hate their countries more than Europeans.

1. I placed no value judgement on hypocrisy one way or the other.
2. Euros make a show of feeling bad.  Perhaps the wreckage tehya re doing to their nations and their culture is motivated by self hate more than smug PC fueled hypocrisy.  But I doubt it.

[Sheilbh]

The two problems you run into when you start to describe all geopolitics as imperialism is that a) that sweeps in defensive wars like WWI and II, and b) it ignores the root of imperialism, which is empire.  That's a lot of verbal gymnastics just so the Vietnam War can be described as imperialistic.

It doesn't describe all geopolitics as imperialism and certainly wouldn't include defensive wars.  I think there's more verbal gymnastics explaining how Egypt and Persia didn't suffer from imperialism.

Still with Yi here.  If American efforts can be described Imperialistic, should the Soviet Union, PRC, and North Vietnam itself also be considered imperialistic?

Clearly.  There's a theory of a sort of competitive imperialism which I think describes many actions during the Cold War.

What war isn't considered Imperialistic?

I can't think of a post-Cold War conflict involving the US that's been imperialist.  I can't think of many interventions (Vietnam and Congo spring to mind) during the Cold War that weren't.

Actually the Euro Communists had pretty much stopped listening to Moscow at the time.  Are you going to say that two major European philosophers "got their talking points from the Soviet Union"?

Eurocommunism was relatively new at this point, the real turning point for them was the emergence of democracy in Iberia and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  At this point most European Communist parties still took their line from Moscow - which is why after 68, as after 56 the main reaction was for the membership to plunge.  In addition at this time there's a few more more Maoists on the far left

[derspiess]

France and Britain did precisely the same thing as well. The reason this annoys people is that it remains true.

For the record I also hold those countries to a pretty high standard.  And how they present themselves has alot to do with that.

The only reason Euros or any other foreigners hold us to a higher standard is that it makes it easier for them to knock us down, rhetorically speaking.

[Valmy]

The only reason Euros or any other foreigners hold us to a higher standard is that it makes it easier for them to knock us down, rhetorically speaking.

It is a bit more complicated than that.  The rhetorical thing is a handy tool for foreign governments to blame their own failures on the big bad super power thus deflect local criticism from themselves.  That is practically a unifying ideology in Latin America.

But it is not like the Feds are incapable of mistakes, there is plenty of justified criticism.  Without the foreigners around to point out when we are wrong, or were right and messed it up, how would we here at home know how our government is doing representing us abroad?

[derspiess]

But it is not like the Feds are incapable of mistakes, there is plenty of justified criticism.  Without the foreigners around to point out when we are wrong, or were right and messed it up, how would we here at home know how our government is doing representing us abroad?

Legit criticism gets lost in the noise.  So I tend to ignore it.

[Martinus]

And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.

Right, like the vile imperialism that led the UK to defend Poland. 

When did the UK defend Poland? Was it in 1939 when it declared war on Germany and then sat on its hands, happy to drop lealflets? Or in 1945, when it gave Poland over to Stalin? 

[Valmy]

When did the UK defend Poland? Was it in 1939 when it declared war on Germany and then sat on its hands, happy to drop lealflets? Or in 1945, when it gave Poland over to Stalin?

We did not hand Poland over to Stalin.  Stalin already had it.  Even you Marty?  I am dissapointed.

[Martinus]

I think if you asked an average European to list the biggest atrocities committed by the USA, the Vietnam war, rightly or wrongly, would have been in the top three (along with the Trail of Tears and slavery).

You know, I did start a thread on what was the worst thing the US ever did.  Most Americans said Trail of Tears (except for like Ide who was said it was not nuking the Soviet Union or something), most of the Euros were rather clueless on it.

1

I think most Europeans are on the "U.S.ians treated the natives like shit" side of things, not least to Mr Costner's movie.

Yes.  A hypocritical view for a lot of them. If the US is to be castigated for events taht happened in the past so should Spain, Portugal, and a number of other nations.

Why would Spain, Portugal and a number of other nations be castigated for "the top three attrocities committed by the US"? 

If you asked an average European to name three biggest attrocities committed by his or her country, those with a colonialist past would highly likely mention attrocities committed during the colonial era.

[Martinus]

When did the UK defend Poland? Was it in 1939 when it declared war on Germany and then sat on its hands, happy to drop lealflets? Or in 1945, when it gave Poland over to Stalin?

We did not hand Poland over to Stalin.  Stalin already had it.  Even you Marty?  I am dissapointed.

Fine but cut the fuck down the claims of "defending Poland" then. Nobody expected you to start a war over Poland with Stalin in 1945, but don't fucking expect gratitude.

[garbon]

The two problems you run into when you start to describe all geopolitics as imperialism is that a) that sweeps in defensive wars like WWI and II, and b) it ignores the root of imperialism, which is empire.  That's a lot of verbal gymnastics just so the Vietnam War can be described as imperialistic.

It doesn't describe all geopolitics as imperialism and certainly wouldn't include defensive wars.  I think there's more verbal gymnastics explaining how Egypt and Persia didn't suffer from imperialism.

Seems like you need to explain this more as it feels like you just said "no" to Yi's complaint and left it at that.  I'm not really sure how you extract US involvement in WW1 and WW2 (especially on Euro front) from Imperialism - using your definition.

[CountDeMoney]

When did the UK defend Poland? Was it in 1939 when it declared war on Germany and then sat on its hands, happy to drop lealflets? Or in 1945, when it gave Poland over to Stalin?

We did not hand Poland over to Stalin.  Stalin already had it.  Even you Marty?  I am dissapointed.

Fine but cut the fuck down the claims of "defending Poland" then. Nobody expected you to start a war over Poland with Stalin in 1945, but don't fucking expect gratitude.

No kidding.  Poland's not the best example of the West going to bat for.

[Barrister]

And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.

Right, like the vile imperialism that led the UK to defend Poland. 

When did the UK defend Poland? Was it in 1939 when it declared war on Germany and then sat on its hands, happy to drop lealflets? Or in 1945, when it gave Poland over to Stalin? 

Hitler had made it pretty clear he did not want war with Britain.  He only went to war because Britain declared war on Germany.  Which was done in response to the invasion of Poland.  And as a result within months of September 1939 Britain was the sight of the biggest air campaign in history.

Britain (and by the way, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth) gets no credit for 1945, but certainly gets credit for going to war in 1939.

[Neil]

Fine but cut the fuck down the claims of "defending Poland" then. Nobody expected you to start a war over Poland with Stalin in 1945, but don't fucking expect gratitude.

You owe us your gratitude.  Letting you be Soviet slaves instead of dead was a kindness, and a mistake.

[Sheilbh]

I'll reply properly later, Garbo, but I don't see how WW2 or WW1 meets the description I've given, I agree with Jacob's too. The only possible comparison I can see is the way Roosevelt behaved with the Free French. But Ike disagreed and FDR was attacked at home, so he shifted.