European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Jacob]

I agree 100% that calling Vietnam an imperialist war is just as valid as the concepts of cultural and economic imperialism.

Semi-honest question for you here, Yi:

You have a situation where a rich, powerful country A sends military and political advisors to one faction in country B to ensure that they prevail. A also funnels significant money to friendly elites in B, conducts significant intelligence and covert operations in B, and think nothing of discarding and replacing the elites they fund if there's disagreement, up to and including encouraging the violent overthrow of recalcitrant former clients (not to mention opposition in country B). If things go sideways, country A is perfectly willing to push for their preferred outcome by using their clearly superior military.

I was taught that this is imperialistic, and I believe that definition has fairly wide currency (including on wikipedia for what little that's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism ).

You don't like the term. What would you call that state of affairs? It's something that happened a fair number of times in the 20th Century, so it would make sense to have a term for it.

Is it just "legitimately using your influence"? Is there no point in distinguishing it from using influence that doesn't involve using your military and propping up dictators?

I can see the point of wanting to differentiate it from the kind of empire building that Japan tried in WWII or that the Brits and French had going on earlier; that's fair enough. But I don't think it's reasonable to claim it's just "influencing" on the same level of, say (to make something up), Sweden giving some money for some water projects in Burundi and using that carrot to cause Burundian infrastructure money to be spent on buying Volvo cars and trucks (back when that was a Swedish company) instead of Toyotas or whatever.

So are there terms currently in use that makes that distinction, and if so what are they? And if not, what do you propose?

[Sheilbh]

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

I think you guys are the old lefties here.  You're just using imperialism as a perjorative meaning exploitation, primarily economic and mainly by coercive means.  If you throw in that it's a necessary aspect of capitalism you're fully Marxist.  Throw in some Gramsci and you'll all be singing about cultural imperialism

The view I take is influenced by predominately British historians who are vaguely conservative, if anything.  The point is that that description of imperialism only works for one set of countries at one point in history and even then not fully.  The actual historical experience of empire is considerably more varied.  It isn't always based on subjugation or annexation - very little force was used in Britain's informal empire in China or South America for example.  It isn't always motivated by exploitation - Persia was about protecting other interests, the Earl of Roseberry discussed imperialism as 'staking a claim' either to prevent others or to have the potential to act in the future.  There is a significant difference between the imperial experience in a mercantilist age like the 16th century and that in 19th century free trade.  Similarly there is a difference between 1930s post-Mandate Iraq, after opinion is turning against colonialism and, say, 1850s Rajasthan.  All of these are aspects of imperialism and any use of that phrase as a concept or a definition in history has to be able to cover them.

As I've said before I think imperialism is a word that's still useful.  China's behaviour in, say, Ethiopia seems to me to be a form of informal empire.  Similarly Russia's policy in their near neighbourhood is best described as imperial.  In neither of those cases are we talking about subjugation or annexation or colonisation, but they're definitely imperialist.

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.

Yeah.  I think imperialism is always experienced differently in different places and at different points at history.  In my opinion the British Empire wasn't terribly successful and historically it wasn't terribly long-lived.  But it was undoubtedly versatile and I think that aspect makes it a very useful sort of test case to measure other versions of imperialism.

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).

Well in Vietnam the French backed regime appointed Diem (against the opinion of the French government) because he had friends in Congress.  He then had a rigged plebiscite declaring an independent state of South Vietnam, which the US backed because, as I've mentioned, the view was that if Geneva were followed Vietnam would unify under Ho.

There was a local insurgency in South Vietnam for two years before the North Vietnamese activated their 'stay behind cells'.  Throughout that period Diem killed thousands and imprisoned tens of thousands.  He continued to receive significant US intelligence and military support and aid.  In addition he made himself President and was treated to a triumphant long state trip to the US.

There's then two years after the North Vietnamese start supporting the domestic insurgency.  Throughout that time US support escalates.  Then there's an invasion and US involvement escalates.

The reason I suspect the US would've continued to support Diem if the crisis passed was because they did before the crisis really began - despite his repression and use of what the US military described as 'concentration camps' for political opponents.  The basic reason was that they didn't think there was a better option.

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).

I agree.  And I'm with Syt, concentration camp is the right phrase for the camps in the Boer war.

[Admiral Yi]

What do you mean by faction Yakie?  Were North and South Vietnam two factions, or was Diem the leader of one faction in South Vietnam?

[Jacob]

What do you mean by faction Yakie?  Were North and South Vietnam two factions, or was Diem the leader of one faction in South Vietnam?

Well, he represented one faction in Vietnam in opposition to Ho Chi Minh. Once he declared that South Vietnam was an independent state he was a different faction than, say, the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao religious sects whom he persecuted; I think it's fair to say that the generals who deposed and executed him were of a different (and American backed at the time) faction than Diem.

Are you going to answer my question, though?

[Razgovory]

I agree 100% that calling Vietnam an imperialist war is just as valid as the concepts of cultural and economic imperialism.

Semi-honest question for you here, Yi:

You have a situation where a rich, powerful country A sends military and political advisors to one faction in country B to ensure that they prevail. A also funnels significant money to friendly elites in B, conducts significant intelligence and covert operations in B, and think nothing of discarding and replacing the elites they fund if there's disagreement, up to and including encouraging the violent overthrow of recalcitrant former clients (not to mention opposition in country B). If things go sideways, country A is perfectly willing to push for their preferred outcome by using their clearly superior military.

I was taught that this is imperialistic, and I believe that definition has fairly wide currency (including on wikipedia for what little that's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism ).

You don't like the term. What would you call that state of affairs? It's something that happened a fair number of times in the 20th Century, so it would make sense to have a term for it.

Is it just "legitimately using your influence"? Is there no point in distinguishing it from using influence that doesn't involve using your military and propping up dictators?

I can see the point of wanting to differentiate it from the kind of empire building that Japan tried in WWII or that the Brits and French had going on earlier; that's fair enough. But I don't think it's reasonable to claim it's just "influencing" on the same level of, say (to make something up), Sweden giving some money for some water projects in Burundi and using that carrot to cause Burundian infrastructure money to be spent on buying Volvo cars and trucks (back when that was a Swedish company) instead of Toyotas or whatever.

So are there terms currently in use that makes that distinction, and if so what are they? And if not, what do you propose?

I think we are getting to the root of the problem here.  It's a big rich country against a smaller poorer country.  I think that is the source of the distaste.  I think it's why so many Euros are anti-Israel.  They see a powerful country beat up on less powerful ones (even if the less powerful ones are attacking Israel and attempting to provoke a response).

The scenario you describe is not entirely accurate.  For instance "and think nothing of discarding and replacing the elites they fund if there's disagreement, up to and including encouraging the violent overthrow of recalcitrant former clients " is really not an accurate description of what went on.  You also write "country A sends military and political advisors to one faction in country B to ensure that they prevail. A also funnels significant money to friendly elites in B", while neglecting to mention that this is the government of said country.  Who else in the US suppose to deal with if not the government?  The Teamster's Union?

[Jacob]

As an aside, the Cao Dai are pretty interesting. Apparently they consider Victor Hugo a saint

Although various sects of Caodaiism claim to have received messages from numerous spiritual entities, the Tây Ninh Holy See acknowledges significantly fewer. Inside the Holy See is a painting depicting the Three Saints signing a covenant between God and humanity. From left to right, they are Sun Yat-sen, Victor Hugo and Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Dai

[Sheilbh]

I think we are getting to the root of the problem here.  It's a big rich country against a smaller poorer country.  I think that is the source of the distaste.  I think it's why so many Euros are anti-Israel.  They see a powerful country beat up on less powerful ones (even if the less powerful ones are attacking Israel and attempting to provoke a response).

Not really.  Me and Jacob have both described the PRC and Iran as imperialist.  For myself I don't think Israel's imperialist, with the possible exception of Lebanon.

As an aside, the Cao Dai are pretty interesting. Apparently they consider Victor Hugo a saint

Agreed.  I wonder why Vietnam became so influenced by French/Western culture.  It seems far more syncretic than other bits of French Indochina: Cao Dai, Banh Mi, Roman script etc.

[Jacob]

Looking into the Hao Hoa a bit:

When America began pushing for Ngô Đình Diệm to run South Vietnam, the most powerful groups to concern the Americans were the Cao Đài, the Bình Xuyên and the Hòa Hảo, which had formed a small private army under General Ba Cụt. O.S.S. Colonel Edward Lansdale used bribery with CIA funds to split the Hòa Hảo and in 1956 General Dương Văn Minh crushed the Hòa Hảo and General Ba Cụt was captured and beheaded in public.

... fascinating stuff (though it is on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoa_Hao )

[Razgovory]

I think we are getting to the root of the problem here.  It's a big rich country against a smaller poorer country.  I think that is the source of the distaste.  I think it's why so many Euros are anti-Israel.  They see a powerful country beat up on less powerful ones (even if the less powerful ones are attacking Israel and attempting to provoke a response).

Not really.  Me and Jacob have both described the PRC and Iran as imperialist.  For myself I don't think Israel's imperialist, with the possible exception of Lebanon.

As an aside, the Cao Dai are pretty interesting. Apparently they consider Victor Hugo a saint

Agreed.  I wonder why Vietnam became so influenced by French/Western culture.  It seems far more syncretic than other bits of French Indochina: Cao Dai, Banh Mi, Roman script etc.

What did China and Iran suddenly become tiny countries?  They are bigger and stronger then those they are apparently imperial over.

[Sheilbh]

What did China and Iran suddenly become tiny countries?  They are bigger and stronger then those they are apparently imperial over.

Well they're not big, rich countries.  We're also not criticising them out of some European post-colonial guilt.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, he represented one faction in Vietnam in opposition to Ho Chi Minh. Once he declared that South Vietnam was an independent state he was a different faction than, say, the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao religious sects whom he persecuted; I think it's fair to say that the generals who deposed and executed him were of a different (and American backed at the time) faction than Diem.

My understanding is that Diem didn't declare the independence of South Vietnam (though I could very well be wrong--my lack of knowledge of early South Vietnamese history has already been demonstrated) but it was a creation of the peace treaty that France signed with North Vietnam.

Are you going to answer my question, though?

You mean the question of if you have a situation where a rich, powerful country A sends military and political advisors to one faction in country B to ensure that they prevail and A also funnels significant money to friendly elites in B, conducts significant intelligence and covert operations in B, and think nothing of discarding and replacing the elites they fund if there's disagreement, up to and including encouraging the violent overthrow of recalcitrant former clients (not to mention opposition in country B) and if things go sideways, country A is perfectly willing to push for their preferred outcome by using their clearly superior military, whether that's imperialism or not?

I think that even if we accept for the sake of argument your implicit assumption that the US imposed the anti-Communist regime of Diem on the South Vietnamese people against their will, it would not fit my definition of imperialism.  The US was not trying to aquire territory or create a subject state.

[Sheilbh]

My understanding is that Diem didn't declare the independence of South Vietnam (though I could very well be wrong--my lack of knowledge of early South Vietnamese history has already been demonstrated) but it was a creation of the peace treaty that France signed with North Vietnam.

There was temporary partition in 1954-55 to be followed by an internationally observed referendum and unification in 1956.  In, I think, 1955 Diem rigged a plebiscite declaring South Vietnamese independence.

[Razgovory]

Didn't Ho already declare a state before that?

[Jacob]

My understanding is that Diem didn't declare the independence of South Vietnam (though I could very well be wrong--my lack of knowledge of early South Vietnamese history has already been demonstrated) but it was a creation of the peace treaty that France signed with North Vietnam.

My understanding is that the peace treated temporarily split the country, until a nationwide election would determine the future of the country. Diem (then PM for the Emperor Bao Dai) declared South Vietnam independent saying that it didn't have to recognize the Geneva treaty. He was supported by Eisenhower who in 1954 wrote that "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh."

You mean the question of if you have a situation where a rich, powerful country A sends military and political advisors to one faction in country B to ensure that they prevail and A also funnels significant money to friendly elites in B, conducts significant intelligence and covert operations in B, and think nothing of discarding and replacing the elites they fund if there's disagreement, up to and including encouraging the violent overthrow of recalcitrant former clients (not to mention opposition in country B) and if things go sideways, country A is perfectly willing to push for their preferred outcome by using their clearly superior military, whether that's imperialism or not?

I think that even if we accept for the sake of argument your implicit assumption that the US imposed the anti-Communist regime of Diem on the South Vietnamese people against their will, it would not fit my definition of imperialism.  The US was not trying to aquire territory or create a subject state.

Yeah, I got that part.

My question was what you'd call it, and whether you thought it worthwhile to distinguishing it from using influence that does not involve military advisors, covert operation, funding of domestic political factions, the imposition of a client regime and the other things we're accepting, for the sake of argument, the US carried out in Vietnam (and other countries have carried out elsewhere)?

[Sheilbh]

What's your definition of subject state Yi?

Didn't Ho already declare a state before that?

My understanding was that he declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and was head of North Vietnam after Geneva, but that he rejected Diem's plebiscite and never declared a state of North Vietnam.