European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[garbon]

I don't know how to ride a bike.

I'm sure Mongers would be willing to teach you, considering how much time he spends proselytizing. 

I'd rather suck a dick.

Oh that doesn't work, does it?

[Sheilbh]

My impression is that they offered advice, money, arms, and a commitment to stand behind their preferred candidate. That and continued backing for him to keep him in power.

I don't know the specifics, but it seems that various decision makers at the time from Eisenhower onwards considered Diem "our guy".

EDIT: my understanding is based on accumulated reading. I'm not claiming scholarly expertise here.

Yeah my understanding too.  The Vietnamese Emperor (the French puppet) appointed Diem because he had very strong links with the US (he was the 'Third Force') which he wanted to ensure for post-colonial Vietnam.  The view Ike's administration reached was that they should back him fully, even though he was repressive and corrupt because there wasn't a better option.  In terms of moving from Indochina to Vietnam he was very much the American candidate.  Had the US preferred another candidate, he would've been chosen by Bao Dai and had he (like Diem) had a few plebiscites which he won by 98% that turned him into a dictator the US would probably have supported him, just like they did Diem.

It's like if the post-war Iraqi provisional government chose to appoint Chalabi as PM, due to his links with Congress and the US would back him as he slid into autocracy, like Diem, complete with what US military figures described as 'concentration camps' for political opponents.  That, for me, would make Iraq an imperialist adventure too.

Wait, how do you know there was "overwhelming opposition".  It's not like someone was polling people.

That was the best guess at the time.  Ike famously said if Geneva was followed 80% of the people would vote for a unified Vietnam under Ho.

Wonder what happened to the Buddhist monks under the communist rule.  Maybe they found someone else to light them on fire.

Diem was Catholic and very anti-Buddhist.  I'm fairly sure that contributed to his assassination and the coup against him.

I think to large extent we did that during the wars.

I think there's a difference when those elites are freely chosen by their people, according to the standards of the day, or can even be seen to be trying to build towards that as was the case in WW2.  In addition I think the alliance structure between what were then great powers that makes it different.  I don't see how you could argue that the US administration of post-war Europe was imperialist when they very quickly tried to make the transition to democratic rule.  I think that accusation can be far more levelled at Churchill and Stalin than any of the US leadership - I think both in terms of post-war negotiating (the infamous percentages) and, say, the UK's behaviour in Yugoslavia.  If anything too many in the American government were a bit naive. 

The two possible exceptions, in my view, are the Free French and Greece (as Jacob suggests).  I think Greece is an interesting example because it's something Britain did elsewhere in the world during decolonisation, to cut the costs of our global responsibilities.  The British government (according to cabinet papers was very concerned with the expense of the Greek civil war) basically persuaded the US to step into their shoes.  The US was dealing with the same elites the British had been dealing with for decades, with no reference to Greece's interests or the Greeks perception of them.  The US became the imperial backer of one side of a civil war, the Soviet Union the other - over their geostrategic interests.  Something pretty similar happened in Indochina.

I also agree with Jacob.  I think there's a very Eurocentric view of imperialism which has as its model the scramble for Africa.  In my view that's insufficient.  As I say I think it misses other aspects of European imperialism in the 19th century such as in Egypt or Persia, but also the 'informal' British empire interest in South America, for example.  Equally importantly, from my understanding, it wouldn't consider, say, historical Chinese imperialism in South-East Asia to be that, because it's not Rhodesian enough. 

Also I think Jacob's right that Russia behaves like an imperial power with their near neighbourhood (at economic cost often) and did so way before they invaded Georgia.  China, Iran, Syria and Vietnam all currently or in the past have behaved like imperial powers without it necessarily being about subjugating states, acquiring territory or even direct economic consequences. 

[Razgovory]

That was the best guess at the time.  Ike famously said if Geneva was followed 80% of the people would vote for a unified Vietnam under Ho.

Still, no hard facts.  Just guesses.  Considering how many people fled the country or were put into forced labor camps, I'd say there was a good portion of the population wasn't so keen on the Communists.

[Sheilbh]

But guesses matter, our best approximations are what lots of policy is based on. For example it was the basis of US support for Diem and the rigged plebiscite for permanent partition.

[Josquius]

I also agree with Jacob.  I think there's a very Eurocentric view of imperialism which has as its model the scramble for Africa.  In my view that's insufficient.  As I say I think it misses other aspects of European imperialism in the 19th century such as in Egypt or Persia, but also the 'informal' British empire interest in South America, for example.  Equally importantly, from my understanding, it wouldn't consider, say, historical Chinese imperialism in South-East Asia to be that, because it's not Rhodesian enough. 

I wouldn't really class  the European nations throwing their weight around outside of their empires as imperialism. To me imperialism is the solid empire building side of things.
Europeans carving out spheres in Persia, China, etc.... isn't imperialism, its just general politics.

Well yes. The Phillipine Resistance against US rule did convince the USA that Imperialism was a silly thing to do. The ones who initially wanted an empire found out that it wasn't worth the effort.

America did have an empire. Land based empires count.

[Razgovory]

But guesses matter, our best approximations are what lots of policy is based on. For example it was the basis of US support for Diem and the rigged plebiscite for permanent partition.

And many In the American government obviously didn't agree since there was efforts by the US government to push democratic reforms.

[Valmy]

And many In the American government obviously didn't agree since there was efforts by the US government to push democratic reforms.

Who are you talking about, what sort of efforts, when did this happen, and how did it turn it out?

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why you insist on bringing up Britain since I havent given them a pass for anything.  I am simplying identifying the fact that they were very different circumstances.

I believe your original position was that Britain's declaration of war against Germany in response to the invasion of Poland was not an imperialist war.

You are mixing me up with someone else.  I didnt mention Britain until you brought it up.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why you insist on bringing up Britain since I havent given them a pass for anything.  I am simplying identifying the fact that they were very different circumstances.

I believe your original position was that Britain's declaration of war against Germany in response to the invasion of Poland was not an imperialist war.

You are mixing me up with someone else.  I didnt mention Britain until you brought it up.

[derspiess]

So what's with expanding the definition of "imperialism" so wide?  Is it just an affinity for old leftism?

[Valmy]

So what's with expanding the definition of "imperialism" so wide?  Is it just an affinity for old leftism?

I think it is because of the British Empire.  They had a very diverse tool box of Imperialism.  It confused what was once a pretty straightforward concept.

[garbon]

I think there's a difference when those elites are freely chosen by their people, according to the standards of the day, or can even be seen to be trying to build towards that as was the case in WW2.  In addition I think the alliance structure between what were then great powers that makes it different.  I don't see how you could argue that the US administration of post-war Europe was imperialist when they very quickly tried to make the transition to democratic rule.  I think that accusation can be far more levelled at Churchill and Stalin than any of the US leadership - I think both in terms of post-war negotiating (the infamous percentages) and, say, the UK's behaviour in Yugoslavia.  If anything too many in the American government were a bit naive. 

But wasn't the US just supporting who was in charge in both cases? I mean the US didn't actually pick Diem but supported him once he was in power.  Similarly, in the WW2 case, you have where the Allies were ultimately successful and the US was free to to disengage from the theatre. That didn't happen with Vietnam, so it seems hard to me to say that America would have continued to prop up Diem once the crisis period had passed (i.e. war ended with North Vietnam pacified).

[Jacob]

So what's with expanding the definition of "imperialism" so wide?  Is it just an affinity for old leftism?

It's a useful descriptive term. Personally, I'm fine with using another term if there's one available.

In the case of Vietnam, I don't think there's substantial disagreement that South Vietnam was a US client state, and that the primary motivation for US involvement was geopolitical concerns - namely opposing the USSR, right?

What's a good term to describe relationships like that?

[DGuller]

No, Bao Dai was the king the Frogs had selected.  Diem was a president chosen by the Vietnamese people in an election.

You mean the one where he won by receiving 98.2% of the vote, including 133% of the votes in Saigon? Whereas his American advisors had recommended a more modest 60% to 70% victory when rigging the election?

I don't think that voting fraud made a difference.  Sure, Saigon's turnout of 133% looks a little dubious, but Saigon alone couldn't give Diem 98% of the vote.

[Malthus]

So what's with expanding the definition of "imperialism" so wide?  Is it just an affinity for old leftism?

It's a useful descriptive term. Personally, I'm fine with using another term if there's one available.

In the case of Vietnam, I don't think there's substantial disagreement that South Vietnam was a US client state, and that the primary motivation for US involvement was geopolitical concerns - namely opposing the USSR, right?

What's a good term to describe relationships like that?

Supporting a client state. "Containment" of Communism.

To my mind, "imperialism" is very specific - taking over someone elses' country in aid of the profit of the metropolitan or to expand it by including lands occupied by otherwise unrelated populations  - that is, to create an "empire".

What France was up to in Vietnam was "imperialism" - they wanted their overseas empire back after WW2. What the US was up to wasn't, really, as the US had no particular desire to "own" Vietnam, and did not foresee profiting from Vietnam.

Naturally, most Vietnamese nationalists did not see the difference between being tramped over by one set of foriegn soldiers as opposed to another set, but the motives behind sending those soldiers to tramp were very different.

Now, as a slogan, "imperialism" makes a fine one mid-last-century, as European imperialsim was everywhere discredited. It is used to cast doubt on any military mission - if it is "imperialist" it is, by definition, both futile and morally bankrupt. But it is not an accurate description in all cases and it does not really apply to the US in Vietnam, other than as a polemic.