European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Sheilbh]

Again, whatever the US did in Iran or central America, of all the wars fought, Vietnam is the *least* "imperialist". In central America presumably the US was interfering to promote commercial interests (hence "banana republic") and in Iran for oil; all the US got from Vietnam was a bunch of ethnic Chinese boat people ...

In Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism and the USSR over-reaching containment as they had in the Middle East, destabilising the region.

Wait, run that by me again.  He declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam but didn't declare a state of North Vietnam?  I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me are disagreeing with me.  Or both.

Ho declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945 - which was all of Vietnam.  He accepted temporary partition in 1954, the terms of which agreed to unification within two years.  Diem declared an independent South Vietnam and had no intention of agreeing to the unification plebiscite.  Ho was head of North Vietnam but never declared an independent North Vietnam, his goal was always Vietnam.

Yeah, I was thinking that if this is empire, then we are doing it fucking backwards.  They are suppose to give stuff to us, not the other way around.

Common misconception.  Most studies now suggest that the British Empire was a net drain and cost to the UK after about 1850.  Interestingly it's at this point you get a sort of high imperialism - 'Empress of India', the Scramble for Africa etc.  The cost of maintaining and defending the Empire, combined with uneconomic investment in the Empire is now believed to have been far higher than the benefit of preferential trade, resources, taxes, returns on investments and all the rest.

realpolitik?

I'd say detente, and bailing on the South Vietnamese because of that was closer to realpolitik.

Because it was one of the defining features if not of the 20th Century, then at least of the Cold War.

Because we're interested in history and politics, and a precise vocabulary enhances our ability to discuss and understand.

Yeah.  I thought this when Berk was talking about using a word that's just polemical in general talk.  That's a fair point, but we're all history geeks of one sort or another 

[Razgovory]

Ho declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945 - which was all of Vietnam.  He accepted temporary partition in 1954, the terms of which agreed to unification within two years.  Diem declared an independent South Vietnam and had no intention of agreeing to the unification plebiscite.  Ho was head of North Vietnam but never declared an independent North Vietnam, his goal was always Vietnam.

So yes, Ho did declare a state first.

Common misconception.  Most studies now suggest that the British Empire was a net drain and cost to the UK after about 1850.  Interestingly it's at this point you get a sort of high imperialism - 'Empress of India', the Scramble for Africa etc.  The cost of maintaining and defending the Empire, combined with uneconomic investment in the Empire is now believed to have been far higher than the benefit of preferential trade, resources, taxes, returns on investments and all the rest.

But Empires prior to 1850 were not a net drain?

[Valmy]

But Empires prior to 1850 were not a net drain?

The Portuguese famously looted and plundered from Brazil to Japan just to break even.  Then they discovered vast mineral wealth and gave it all to Britain.

[Razgovory]

So they were doing better then they are now?

[Valmy]

So they were doing better then are now?

It seems Portugal requires a world empire to balance its budget.

[Berkut]

Why do we need to call it anything at all?

Because it was one of the defining features if not of the 20th Century, then at least of the Cold War.

Because we're interested in history and politics, and a precise vocabulary enhances our ability to discuss and understand.

Using vague emotive terms with anything BUT precise meanings to describe something does nothing to enhance our ability to understand history - quite the opposite in fact.

It's not like saying "The US involvement in the Vietnam War was imperialist in nature" actually SAYS anything at all. It is vague, ambiguous, and devoid of serious content. It is trolling disguised as intellectual discourse.

Hell, even for those who agree that the term is accurate, you are going to get wildly divergent views of what they mean by it.

[Syt]

The Brits came up with the term.  They get copyright.

I just said they invented the term - my objection was that Syt said they invented the concentration camp itself.

Dude, there was a reason why I put the word 'invented' in quotation marks.

[Eddie Teach]

No blood for Timbits! California's are all locally owned and operated.

They don't have Krispy Kreme?

[Gups]

Why do we need to call it anything at all?

Because it was one of the defining features if not of the 20th Century, then at least of the Cold War.

Because we're interested in history and politics, and a precise vocabulary enhances our ability to discuss and understand.

Using vague emotive terms with anything BUT precise meanings to describe something does nothing to enhance our ability to understand history - quite the opposite in fact.

It's not like saying "The US involvement in the Vietnam War was imperialist in nature" actually SAYS anything at all. It is vague, ambiguous, and devoid of serious content. It is trolling disguised as intellectual discourse.

Hell, even for those who agree that the term is accurate, you are going to get wildly divergent views of what they mean by it.

I said much the same thing a few hundred posts back and (obviously) couldn't agree more.

It's lazy. By pretending that you *solve* the question of whether the war was "just" or "unjust" by whether or not it was an imperial war you avoid all the shades of grey and the complexities that make up real history.

[Malthus]

In Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism and the USSR over-reaching containment as they had in the Middle East, destabilising the region.

Well, yes, I mentioned "containment" in my first post. But containment by supporting a cxlient state isn't the same as putting together an empire. The US did not want an overseas empire in Asia, did not want to make Vietnam a part of that empire, and where it succeeded - in South Korea - in doing exactly what it was attempting to do in Vietnam, the resulting state isn't part of an American Empire now.

In other cases, like the British, European empires may well have been failing enterprises economically, but the motives for holding on to them at least included the notion that they were a net positive - if not in terms of money then at least in terms of prestige. The US gained nothing from fighting in Vietnam and did not anticipate gaining anything from fighting in Vietnam. They fought there out of fear - fear that if they did not, communism in the region would spread to the detriment of the West.

They were wrong in that, because of course "communism" was not a monolithic entity. And no doubt on occasion European Imperialists fought for somewhat similar reasons (the "Great Game" in Asia springs to mind) - but their motives were very different. 

[crazy canuck]

They were wrong in that, because of course "communism" was not a monolithic entity. And no doubt on occasion European Imperialists fought for somewhat similar reasons (the "Great Game" in Asia springs to mind) - but their motives were very different.

The motives of the Great Game were very similiar to the later day US policy of containment.  England wanted to protect India.  The US wanted to protect the world (and its markets) from the domino effect of the spread of communism.

[Malthus]

They were wrong in that, because of course "communism" was not a monolithic entity. And no doubt on occasion European Imperialists fought for somewhat similar reasons (the "Great Game" in Asia springs to mind) - but their motives were very different.

The motives of the Great Game were very similiar to the later day US policy of containment.  England wanted to protect India.  The US wanted to protect the world (and its markets) from the domino effect of the spread of communism.

The difference is that the motives of the Brits were to protect their Indian empire - hence it would not be a mistake to call them "imperialist".

The US lacked an "empire" in Asia to protect. Hence it makes no sense to call the US motives "imperialist".

[garbon]

Interesting that wanting to protect the world = imperialism.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, yes, I mentioned "containment" in my first post. But containment by supporting a cxlient state isn't the same as putting together an empire. The US did not want an overseas empire in Asia, did not want to make Vietnam a part of that empire, and where it succeeded - in South Korea - in doing exactly what it was attempting to do in Vietnam, the resulting state isn't part of an American Empire now.

Although I agree with this, there is a current of opinion that claims that ROK is in fact part of an American Empire, using as evidence the presence of US troops, strategic dependence on a US military alliance, adherence to the US-led "world order," and acceptance of American cultural influence.

But that just reduces back to semantic bickering over defintions of "empire" and "imperialism"

[crazy canuck]

They were wrong in that, because of course "communism" was not a monolithic entity. And no doubt on occasion European Imperialists fought for somewhat similar reasons (the "Great Game" in Asia springs to mind) - but their motives were very different.

The motives of the Great Game were very similiar to the later day US policy of containment.  England wanted to protect India.  The US wanted to protect the world (and its markets) from the domino effect of the spread of communism.

The difference is that the motives of the Brits were to protect their Indian empire - hence it would not be a mistake to call them "imperialist".

The US lacked an "empire" in Asia to protect. Hence it makes no sense to call the US motives "imperialist".

A while back I asked you whether there is such a thing as economic imperialism without the occupation of land.  You didnt answer but I take it from this response your answer would be no.