European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Jacob]

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.

So the Vietnamese perspective is discarded because one set of foreign soldiers were sent there with allegedly better motives? I don't find that that convincing, especially given that earlier British and French colonialism had a set of good intentions to justify their actions as well.

[Valmy]

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.

Well he also won huge majorities in rural districts that were strongholds of opposition to him.  He may have won anyway but whatever popularity he had he soon squandered.

[Malthus]

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.

So the Vietnamese perspective is discarded because one set of foreign soldiers were sent there with allegedly better motives? I don't find that that convincing, especially given that earlier British and French colonialism had a set of good intentions to justify their actions as well.

The issue is how objectively to rate the motives, not what anyone subjectively thinks of them. The Vietnamese may well think that the Americans were no better than Nazis, but this does not, in fact, make them Nazis - because the Nazis had a specific set of ideology that the Americans did not have, right? 

It is not a question of good or bad intentions. French imperialists may well have had the best intentions in the world, and indeed have worn the "imperialist" label proudly (as did many UK imperialists). The US may have had horrible intentions. That doesn't make them "imperialist" when they were not, any more than US soldiers behaving horribly makes them "Nazis" when they were not.  Again, being "imperialist" presupposes a specific intent - one to create an "empire". Whatever the US was up to in Vietnam, it was not to add it to an American "empire".

Now, if you wanted to say that the Americans "behaved no better than imperialists", go right ahead. But saying they were imperialists is simply wrong.

[Razgovory]

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?

Johnson administration, efforts to create an elected legislative body, mid 1960's after all those coups, and not well.

[Berkut]

Saying the US actions in Vietnam were "Imperialist" is like saying that the Japanese internment camps in WW2 were "concentration camps". Even if you can come up with a tortured (or even not so tortured) definition of the term to justify it, it is pretty obvious you are just trying to use an emotive term to score cheap points based on a commonly understood meaning that does not really apply. Sure, you can then claim you didn't mean THAT definition of the term - the one 99% of people think of when they hear the term - but really, to what point? Why use a term with such overt connotations to begin with, *especially* on Languish when we have had this exact same argument with the exact same people several times already?

Calling the Vietnam war imperialist does nothing to advance the discussion of the moral justification for the war - quite the opposite as it just turns the discussion into a pissing match about what the term means which stands as a proxy for the actual discussion.

Absent the negative emotive context of the term "Imperialism" what difference does it make to the discussion whether or not US war aims were imperialistic or not? None at all - so why bother?

[crazy canuck]

@ Malthus, do you think there is such a thing as economic imperialism without physical occupation?

@ Berkut, imperialism is a touchy subject for Americans becuase their founding myth is of fighting against it.  But if you look at the actions of the US around the world particularly South and Central America and the role the US played in bringing the Shah to power in Iran in order to protect US commercian interests it is hard to think of a different word.

But if you can suggest one that would be great.

[Barrister]

Saying the US actions in Vietnam were "Imperialist" is like saying that the Japanese internment camps in WW2 were "concentration camps".

Japanese internment camps were concentration camps.  Hell, the wiki page for "concentration camp" has a picture of a Canadian japanese internment camp.

The term concentration camp has become conflated with Nazi death camps, but it does have its own meaning, which is simply a camp where you lock up a lot of people who are deemed dangerous to the government (but have not committed any specific crime).

[derspiess]

So influencing other countries to promote your own economic interests is imperialism?  I guess quite a few countries are guilty of that, then.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree that concentration camps is a bad example.  A better analogy might be the tendency to call any government you don't like "fascist."

[Valmy]

So influencing other countries to promote your own economic interests is imperialism?  I guess quite a few countries are guilty of that, then.

If influencing other countries with your culture is 'Cultural Imperialism' then sure why not?  Again this all comes from the British and their Empire both formal and informal.  I mean even the phrase 'informal empire' would be ridiculous before they came along.  The things they did are now the standard practices of any superpower, so people note the similarities.

[Razgovory]

I think "imperialist" is just European talk for something they disapprove of.  Like that Morrissey guy who said the Olympics were being used for the "Empirical ends" of the Royal Family.  Presumably he meant Imperial.

[crazy canuck]

So influencing other countries to promote your own economic interests is imperialism?  I guess quite a few countries are guilty of that, then.

Very few countries send in their CIA equivalent and when that doesnt work their military to "influence" things.

[crazy canuck]

I agree that concentration camps is a bad example.  A better analogy might be the tendency to call any government you don't like "fascist."

Or people you disagree with Lefties - not directed at you btw Yi

[Valmy]

I think "imperialist" is just European talk for something they disapprove of.  Like that Morrissey guy who said the Olympics were being used for the "Empirical ends" of the Royal Family.  Presumably he meant Imperial.

It is not just the Euros.  It is world wide.  Blame the Commies.

[Viking]

I have to protest against the misleading use of "Concentration Camp". Auschwitz was not a concentration camp; it was a "Vernichtungslager" or in english, Extermination Camp. The Concentration Camp is where you gather a dispersed population in one place so you can control it. The conditions can be very bad and you can send the people from the concentration camp on to extermination camps.