There is a picture that's been circulating around the net for years comparing the US and the EU. It's silly really, but I keep thinking about it (it's been posted here once at least). It compares the various deficits and virtues of both the EU and the US. Under the history heading it shows Auschwitz as a bad thing for Europe and a photo from the Vietnam war for the US. This strikes me as pretty strange, so I wondered how exactly do our European friends view American involvement in Vietnam. Personally I see it as noble if misguided. While South Vietnam was a corrupt kleptocracy that lacked support from much of it's population it's northern neighbor was an aggressive, dishonest and authoritarian regime. Essentially the US was defending one state from another and that seems to be a noble enough goal. The main problem was that US lacked or didn't implement quick enough a successful strategy for South Vietnam, not that it was it's actions were innately evil. True, innocent people died, but peace also killed quite a few innocent people in South Vietnam as well. The NVA was pretty ruthless with populace once they successfully conquered it.
So my question is mostly posed toward the Euros, but anyone can answer.
It was a mistake, but our heart was in the right place.
The issue people had with Vietnam was more with the American methods than their helping South Vietnam.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:37:16 AM
The issue people have with Vietnam is with the American methods rather than their helping South Vietnam.
People who? That certainly doesn't sound like the boilerplate criticism that I'm accustomed to hearing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:37:16 AM
The issue people have with Vietnam is with the American methods rather than their helping South Vietnam.
People who? That certainly doesn't sound like the boilerplate criticism that I'm accustomed to hearing.
People who moan about the Vietnam war.
Whenever I see it its far more about sending in conscripts to die, agent orange, napalming villages, etc...
Nobody really cares about the geo-politics of it all.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:37:16 AM
The issue people had with Vietnam was more with the American methods than their helping South Vietnam.
Given the state of military technology of the time, I find it unlikely we could have done much better with regards to civilian casualties given the scale of the conflict.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:46:03 AM
People who moan about the Vietnam war.
Whenever I see it its far more about sending in conscripts to die, agent orange, napalming villages, etc...
Nobody really cares about the geo-politics of it all.
Plenty of people who have moaned and still moan do so regarding the oppresive imperialist Americans oppressing the independence-loving Vietnamese people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 03:49:04 AM
Plenty of people who have moaned and still moan do so regarding the oppresive imperialist Americans oppressing the independence-loving Vietnamese people.
Maybe in the 70s. The only place I ever see that kind of crap is from marxists and other idiots. Really not a majority viewpoint at all.
I very much doubt that was the thinking behind the very strained auschwitz comparison, seems pretty certain to me that was far more about American behaviour in the war rather than the war itself.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:46:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:37:16 AM
The issue people have with Vietnam is with the American methods rather than their helping South Vietnam.
People who? That certainly doesn't sound like the boilerplate criticism that I'm accustomed to hearing.
People who moan about the Vietnam war.
Whenever I see it its far more about sending in conscripts to die, agent orange, napalming villages, etc...
Nobody really cares about the geo-politics of it all.
Then why don't they complain about Allied involvement in WWII? You have conscripts and firebombing there as well.
At a rough guess, less than 5% of Europeans think of it at all. For many of those that do, their impressions will be based on a number of Hollywood films and images of the protests in the late 1960s.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 04:24:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:46:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:37:16 AM
The issue people have with Vietnam is with the American methods rather than their helping South Vietnam.
People who? That certainly doesn't sound like the boilerplate criticism that I'm accustomed to hearing.
People who moan about the Vietnam war.
Whenever I see it its far more about sending in conscripts to die, agent orange, napalming villages, etc...
Nobody really cares about the geo-politics of it all.
Then why don't they complain about Allied involvement in WWII? You have conscripts and firebombing there as well.
hardcore anti-american en pro-communist shitheads do complain about that.
I don't recall anyone mentioning it for years. At the time the usual leftists were anti-US, but their views are not worth thinking about as they are anti-US regardless :D
My father would watch the news reports and grumble at what he considered to be American over-reliance on bombers in particular and hardware in general. He thought you needed more infantry patrols, though I would have thought that would have involved a greater commitment by the men and the US :hmm: I'm not sure how much he had analysed the situation, it may just have been standard crabby old soldier grumbling (vet of Korea and the Malaya counter-insurgency).
Quote from: Gups on October 08, 2012, 04:35:04 AM
At a rough guess, less than 5% of Europeans think of it at all. For many of those that do, their impressions will be based on a number of Hollywood films and images of the protests in the late 1960s.
This. I think the most prevalent "memory" in the general public would be that the U.S. military with all its firepower was unable to beat a technologically inferior backwater country in a war that was not worth fighting (in hindsight).
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 08, 2012, 04:54:13 AM
I don't recall anyone mentioning it for years. At the time the usual leftists were anti-US, but their views are not worth thinking about as they are anti-US regardless :D
My father would watch the news reports and grumble at what he considered to be American over-reliance on bombers in particular and hardware in general. He thought you needed more infantry patrols, though I would have thought that would have involved a greater commitment by the men and the US :hmm: I'm not sure how much he had analysed the situation, it may just have been standard crabby old soldier grumbling (vet of Korea and the Malaya counter-insurgency).
We already had half a million men there. How many did he want?
Enough to win the war of course. Not much point fighting wars in foreign lands unless you intend to win them.
We needed a SURGE. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 04:24:49 AM
Then why don't they complain about Allied involvement in WWII? You have conscripts and firebombing there as well.
Heh. People do complain about that. The same sort of stuff though: firebombing cities and using the Atomic Bomb. We are big meanies when we fight wars.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 09:04:58 AM
We are big meanies when we fight wars.
Stop apologizing for America.
Noble ? :blink:
Seems a daft descriptor for an ill thought out, open-end commitment to a corrupt failing state, that cost a treasury's worth of imperial gold.
Oh and it gave the US's two principle rivals at the time the opportunity to slowly bleed the US and divide the country domestically, to little cost to themselves.
Wasn't there an old adage about not engaging in land wars on the Asian mainland ?
I wonder if in a few years Iraq will also be described as a 'Noble' war ?
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
I wonder if in a few years Iraq will also be described as a 'Noble' war ?
It was described that way at the outset, man. DEMOCRACY FOR SHIAS
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
Noble ? :blink:
We were trying to save a people from the horrors of Communism.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
Noble ? :blink:
Seems a daft descriptor for an ill thought out, open-end commitment to a corrupt failing state, that cost a treasury's worth of imperial gold.
Yes. Where would you live? An imperfect, corrupt western-friendly state where you at least have some freedoms or an oppressive communist reg... oh wait, don't answer that.
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 10:55:20 AM
Yes. Where would you live? An imperfect, corrupt western-friendly state where you at least have some freedoms or an oppressive communist reg... oh wait, don't answer that.
I think that sorta depended on whether you were Catholic Vietnamese or not.
I expect that about 95% of Europeans' ideas about the Vietnam war is based on American popular media - all the films, the music, the counter culture, and even the impact on American politics. All that may be filtered through 5% worth of local prejudice, but mostly it's just regurgitation of American introspection; no one cares about the Vietnam war.
I haven't seen the picture Raz talked about in the OP, but is there anything to indicate that it reflects European views of the Vietnam war?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 10:55:20 AM
Yes. Where would you live? An imperfect, corrupt western-friendly state where you at least have some freedoms or an oppressive communist reg... oh wait, don't answer that.
I think that sorta depended on whether you were Catholic Vietnamese or not.
Or if you wanted to be reeducated or not.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
Noble ? :blink:
Seems a daft descriptor for an ill thought out, open-end commitment to a corrupt failing state, that cost a treasury's worth of imperial gold.
Oh and it gave the US's two principle rivals at the time the opportunity to slowly bleed the US and divide the country domestically, to little cost to themselves.
Wasn't there an old adage about not engaging in land wars on the Asian mainland ?
I wonder if in a few years Iraq will also be described as a 'Noble' war ?
It was a corrupt state that was failing because it was being invaded by another state.
I believe there were major protests in Europe at the time, so people obviously had an opinion of it. There was also the Russell Tribunal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal and Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre were rather important intellectuals in Europe at the time.
Europeans. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 12:04:10 PM
I believe there were major protests in Europe at the time, so people obviously had an opinion of it. There was also the Russell Tribunal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal and Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre were rather important intellectuals in Europe at the time.
The Euros here have been answering the question about what they think about it now and already said that the usual leftist suspects at the time were opposed. So I am not sure what this stunning relevation is supposed to prove.
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
No matter what your view on Vietnam, I am not sure how you could actually compare those two as being of a kind that makes any comparison valid in any way at all.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 12:02:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
Noble ? :blink:
Seems a daft descriptor for an ill thought out, open-end commitment to a corrupt failing state, that cost a treasury's worth of imperial gold.
Oh and it gave the US's two principle rivals at the time the opportunity to slowly bleed the US and divide the country domestically, to little cost to themselves.
Wasn't there an old adage about not engaging in land wars on the Asian mainland ?
I wonder if in a few years Iraq will also be described as a 'Noble' war ?
It was a corrupt state that was failing because it was being invaded by another state.
And it was artificial, Eisenhower thought the large majority of people would have voted for Ho, in countrywide elections. Hence, those didn't happen and the only temporary division at what became the DMZ lasted for 20 or so years.
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
No matter what your view on Vietnam, I am not sure how you could actually compare those two as being of a kind that makes any comparison valid in any way at all.
I was going to say it was the result of idiot journalism, but on re-reading the OP it's in all probability just some nonsensical crap off of facebook.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:01:41 PM
And it was artificial, Eisenhower thought the large majority of people would have voted for Ho, in countrywide elections. Hence, those didn't happen and the only temporary division at what became the DMZ lasted for 20 or so years.
Mistakes were made ok? Maybe we could have made a deal with Ho and his people...or maybe not they might have been mad at us for bankrolling the French.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:01:41 PM
And it was artificial, Eisenhower thought the large majority of people would have voted for Ho, in countrywide elections.
Democracy. Imagine that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 03:49:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:46:03 AM
People who moan about the Vietnam war.
Whenever I see it its far more about sending in conscripts to die, agent orange, napalming villages, etc...
Nobody really cares about the geo-politics of it all.
Plenty of people who have moaned and still moan do so regarding the oppresive imperialist Americans oppressing the independence-loving Vietnamese people.
Not really. I think when you ask an average European about the Vietnam war, the most common association you will get is "napalm" and "helicopter snipers". Which corroborates Tyr's point.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 04:24:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:46:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:37:16 AM
The issue people have with Vietnam is with the American methods rather than their helping South Vietnam.
People who? That certainly doesn't sound like the boilerplate criticism that I'm accustomed to hearing.
People who moan about the Vietnam war.
Whenever I see it its far more about sending in conscripts to die, agent orange, napalming villages, etc...
Nobody really cares about the geo-politics of it all.
Then why don't they complain about Allied involvement in WWII? You have conscripts and firebombing there as well.
Dresden carpet-bombing is regarded as an atrocity by many modern Europeans.
Quote from: Jacob on October 08, 2012, 11:50:42 AM
I expect that about 95% of Europeans' ideas about the Vietnam war is based on American popular media - all the films, the music, the counter culture, and even the impact on American politics. All that may be filtered through 5% worth of local prejudice, but mostly it's just regurgitation of American introspection; no one cares about the Vietnam war.
I haven't seen the picture Raz talked about in the OP, but is there anything to indicate that it reflects European views of the Vietnam war?
That too. I have two mental pictures when it comes to the Vietnam war. One is the hippie girl presenting a flower to a soldier at some protest. The other is Dr. Manhattan blowing up the Vietnamese in The Watchmen. :P
Neither is an accurate depiction of reality nor something that occupies people here.
You Yanks have an obsession about people in the rest of the world caring about you.
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
No matter what your view on Vietnam, I am not sure how you could actually compare those two as being of a kind that makes any comparison valid in any way at all.
Very little has changed as US involvement in Afghanistan is compared to Nazi Germany.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 08, 2012, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
No matter what your view on Vietnam, I am not sure how you could actually compare those two as being of a kind that makes any comparison valid in any way at all.
Very little has changed as US involvement in Afghanistan is compared to Nazi Germany.
Really? Never heard that one either. Stop with the martyr complex already.
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
Never heard that comparison.
Well somebody did in some picture Raz has.
My understanding is that Europe cared quite a lot about the Vietnam War while it was going on, and it lingered in the 70s and 80s in the minds of anti-Americans. Doesn't seem to be as much an issue for them these days, though.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 02:43:21 PM
Well somebody did in some picture Raz has.
Raz is insane. :secret:
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:44:41 PM
My understanding is that Europe cared quite a lot about the Vietnam War while it was going on, and it lingered in the 70s and 80s in the minds of anti-Americans. Doesn't seem to be as much an issue for them these days, though.
Yeah, pretty much. European public now cares about the banks, the debt crisis, the evil (American, Jewish, British - delete as appropriate) bankers, and possibly Israel although that one is so last decade.
I heard Israel politics towards Palestinians compared to Auschwitz more than the Vietnam war but that's still a fringe.
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.
Now what was this thread about?
I was too young to really know what Vietnam was about. Its biggest impact in BC was an influx of draft dodgers - many of whom have contributed fairly significantly to local politics and culture. By the time I became politically aware the threat of the cold war growing hot or accidental nuclear war was the big concern and Vietnam had already become a footnote in history.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 12:02:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
Noble ? :blink:
Seems a daft descriptor for an ill thought out, open-end commitment to a corrupt failing state, that cost a treasury's worth of imperial gold.
Oh and it gave the US's two principle rivals at the time the opportunity to slowly bleed the US and divide the country domestically, to little cost to themselves.
Wasn't there an old adage about not engaging in land wars on the Asian mainland ?
I wonder if in a few years Iraq will also be described as a 'Noble' war ?
It was a corrupt state that was failing because it was being invaded by another state.
And it was artificial, Eisenhower thought the large majority of people would have voted for Ho, in countrywide elections. Hence, those didn't happen and the only temporary division at what became the DMZ lasted for 20 or so years.
How it more artificial then a communist dictatorship?
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2012, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 08, 2012, 11:50:42 AM
I expect that about 95% of Europeans' ideas about the Vietnam war is based on American popular media - all the films, the music, the counter culture, and even the impact on American politics. All that may be filtered through 5% worth of local prejudice, but mostly it's just regurgitation of American introspection; no one cares about the Vietnam war.
I haven't seen the picture Raz talked about in the OP, but is there anything to indicate that it reflects European views of the Vietnam war?
That too. I have two mental pictures when it comes to the Vietnam war. One is the hippie girl presenting a flower to a soldier at some protest. The other is Dr. Manhattan blowing up the Vietnamese in The Watchmen. :P
This might be because you are really, really stupid.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 02:43:21 PM
Well somebody did in some picture Raz has.
Only Raz would start a thread about a picture with no fucking picture in it. Trolled.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 02:20:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:01:41 PM
And it was artificial, Eisenhower thought the large majority of people would have voted for Ho, in countrywide elections.
Democracy. Imagine that.
But not exactly. After all, we don't commonly associate democracy with the mass murder of everyone who didn't vote Communist.
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2012, 02:32:59 PM
Dresden carpet-bombing is regarded as an atrocity by many modern Europeans.
Nobody with any sense though.
Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2012, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 08, 2012, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
No matter what your view on Vietnam, I am not sure how you could actually compare those two as being of a kind that makes any comparison valid in any way at all.
Very little has changed as US involvement in Afghanistan is compared to Nazi Germany.
. Stop with the martyr complex already.
Oh the supreme irony.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 02:43:21 PM
Well somebody did in some picture Raz has.
Only Raz would start a thread about a picture with no fucking picture in it. Trolled.
:D
I know the pic Raz is talking about. It has a list of items comparing Europe and the US, including art, culture, history, architecture. One of them is Auschwitz/Vietnam.
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 03:51:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 02:20:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 02:01:41 PM
And it was artificial, Eisenhower thought the large majority of people would have voted for Ho, in countrywide elections.
Democracy. Imagine that.
But not exactly. After all, we don't commonly associate democracy with the mass murder of everyone who didn't vote Communist.
Really wish you people wouldn't have such hang ups like that when it comes to the Party.
Quote from: frunk on October 08, 2012, 04:59:20 PM
I know the pic Raz is talking about. It has a list of items comparing Europe and the US, including art, culture, history, architecture. One of them is Auschwitz/Vietnam.
Yeah. It wasn't the only lame comparison in the list either. Somebody was trying too hard.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
Noble ? :blink:
Seems a daft descriptor for an ill thought out, open-end commitment to a corrupt failing state, that cost a treasury's worth of imperial gold.
Oh and it gave the US's two principle rivals at the time the opportunity to slowly bleed the US and divide the country domestically, to little cost to themselves.
Wasn't there an old adage about not engaging in land wars on the Asian mainland ?
That describes S. Korea in 1950. That worked out ok, and so would S. Vietnam if we had won the war.
As far as I can tell, the picture that is most likely to be used to illustrate the Vietnam War here is this: http://media.npr.org/thisibelieve/kimphuc/kimphuc_ap_540-23c019bff4f854e0f64c9dcd1c036302bffa175d.jpg
I guess that when people have an opinion, the Vietnam war isn't seen as "noble if misguided" like Raz sees it, but rather as US imperialism that led to terrible bloodshed. Defending a corrupt, kleptrocratic regime with Agent Orange and Napalm isn't really a convincing message. I heard comparisons to the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan.
That said, it's certainly not compared to Auschwitz here.
Quote from: Zanza on October 08, 2012, 06:34:20 PM
I guess that when people have an opinion, the Vietnam war isn't seen as "noble if misguided" like Raz sees it, but rather as US imperialism that led to terrible bloodshed. Defending a corrupt, kleptrocratic regime with Agent Orange and Napalm isn't really a convincing message. I heard comparisons to the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan.
That's how I see it. But since I belong to the "marxists and other idiots" group feel free to disregard my opinion. :P
Well, I suppose it did cause increased bloodshed amongst Americans and North Vietnamese, but all the South Vietnamese that were killed as a result of the war probably would have been murdered by the Communists anyways.
How is defending a state from an invading state "Imperalism"?
What is seen by "invasion" by some, can be seen as "liberation war" by others. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 08:27:18 PM
How is defending a state from an invading state "Imperalism"?
Well it was one of Britain's most common ploys in India. I'd see it as America's grubby colonial war, picking up shortly after France's grubby colonial war. And, yeah, I've heard Zanza's comparison with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan too.
The other element is that I think a significant part of protests at the time were about European politics as much as American. They were a generational challenge to the European post-war consensus.
QuoteI think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
I don't think that is the point. We'd all agree that that was ridiculous and people on the internet are stupid. Then the thread would end. Talking about European view on Vietnam is new and interesting and has debates.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 08:27:18 PM
How is defending a state from an invading state "Imperalism"?
Well it was one of Britain's most common ploys in India. I'd see it as America's grubby colonial war, picking up shortly after France's grubby colonial war. And, yeah, I've heard Zanza's comparison with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan too.
The other element is that I think a significant part of protests at the time were about European politics as much as American. They were a generational challenge to the European post-war consensus.
QuoteI think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
I don't think that is the point. We'd all agree that that was ridiculous and people on the internet are stupid. Then the thread would end. Talking about European view on Vietnam is new and interesting and has debates.
Okay, what exactly made it "colonial" or "Imperialist"?
Oh and Shelf is right. The picture isn't really the point. It just sparked my interest.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 08:36:55 PM
Okay, what exactly made it "colonial" or "Imperialist"?
What do you mean by those terms?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
Well it was one of Britain's most common ploys in India.
No it wasn't. Britain's common ploy in India was to offer support to a local Raj in return for subject status and then annex the common enemy too. Britain didn't gain an empire by defending victims of aggression then packing up and going home.
QuoteI'd see it as America's grubby colonial war, picking up shortly after France's grubby colonial war. And, yeah, I've heard Zanza's comparison with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan too.
[/quote]
As Raz asked, how was it a colonial war? Colonial wars were fought to aquire territory and subject states.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2012, 08:42:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 08:36:55 PM
Okay, what exactly made it "colonial" or "Imperialist"?
What do you mean by those terms?
That's what I want to know! You were the one who used the word "colonial", and Zanza used the term "Imperalist".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 08:44:48 PM
No it wasn't. Britain's common ploy in India was to offer support to a local Raj in return for subject status and then annex the common enemy too. Britain didn't gain an empire by defending victims of aggression then packing up and going home.
You lost, at best you abandoned an ally to further other interests - you didn't pack up and go home, 'Mission accomplished'.
QuoteAs Raz asked, how was it a colonial war? Colonial wars were fought to aquire territory and subject states.
Ok, grubby imperial war, but one that followed very shortly on from a colonial war except with the Americans instead of the French.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 08:51:01 PM
That's what I want to know! You were the one who used the word "colonial", and Zanza used the term "Imperalist".
Yeah, imperialist is right and colonial is wrong.
'Lost' is a strong word. They negotiated a peace that was status quo antebellum. When the North Vietnamese broke the deal and engaged in their killing fields, that's when the US abandonned their ally.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2012, 08:54:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2012, 08:51:01 PM
That's what I want to know! You were the one who used the word "colonial", and Zanza used the term "Imperalist".
Yeah, imperialist is right and colonial is wrong.
Just like their imperialist war against the Germans in the 40s?
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 09:02:28 PM
'Lost' is a strong word. They negotiated a peace that was status quo antebellum. When the North Vietnamese broke the deal and engaged in their killing fields, that's when the US abandonned their ally.
Which everyone knew was going to happen.
European sympathies with criminal regimes have been noted.
Surprised people here are actually using the term "imperialism". You guys are social democrats, not Marxists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2012, 08:51:24 PM
You lost, at best you abandoned an ally to further other interests - you didn't pack up and go home, 'Mission accomplished'.
No shit. What does this have to do you with your previous comment?
QuoteOk, grubby imperial war, but one that followed very shortly on from a colonial war except with the Americans instead of the French.
Again, how was it an imperial war? Imperial wars are fought to aquire territory, subjugate states, plant colonies. Not very different from colonial wars.
I echo Yi's statements and questions (see Yi, I agree with you sometimes).
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 09:13:22 PM
Surprised people here are actually using the term "imperialism". You guys are social democrats, not Marxists.
Well, there are two imperialisms.
There's the stupid marxist 'imperialism!11' yi mentioned then there is actual imperialism. It is pretty valid to see the Vietnam war as just an outgrowth of the decolonisation wars that ended the age of imperialism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2012, 08:51:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 08:44:48 PM
No it wasn't. Britain's common ploy in India was to offer support to a local Raj in return for subject status and then annex the common enemy too. Britain didn't gain an empire by defending victims of aggression then packing up and going home.
You lost, at best you abandoned an ally to further other interests - you didn't pack up and go home, 'Mission accomplished'.
That was the plan if we won. It's not like we were going to annex S. Vietnam and install a colonial governor if we won.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 09:13:22 PM
Surprised people here are actually using the term "imperialism". You guys are social democrats, not Marxists.
Well, there are two imperialisms.
There's the stupid marxist 'imperialism!11' yi mentioned then there is actual imperialism. It is pretty valid to see the Vietnam war as just an outgrowth of the decolonisation wars that ended the age of imperialism.
Not at all valid, but it is easy if you're not discerning enough.
These days, most euros don't think about the vietnam war or care very much.
That being said, it was a stupid and pointless venture, which had much more to do about not losing face vs the USSR than anything else.
I guess I should clarify that it shouldn't be limited to European views on the American involvement on October 8th 2012, but European views at the time and in general. The answers I've gotten is that it was imperialism, with out much elaborations as to why or what that means in this context, and that the US used chemical defoliates and strategic and tactical bombing (presumably if the US didn't use either one everything would be hunky dory).
The US fought the war to keep South East Asia from turning communist (Domino theory) and thus falling into the Soviet sphere of influence. It didn't fight for the South Vietnamese, but for its own grostrategic interests, namely to keep a friendly regime in place. That's not the 19th century imperialism you guys have in mind but is still considered imperialist in this part of Europe at least. I know you Americans don't like that perception, but you asked for our view.
In Germany the height of the Vietnam protests came during a time of great social upheaval. Germany had a grand coalition of conservatives and social democrats at the time with the libertarians forming a 6% opposition. There were plans to introduce laws that would allow the government to enact basically martial law in case of emergencies - there was huge public opposition against the situation from university students. At the same time, the first post-war generations were starting to ask uneasy questions about their parents' involvement in the Third Reich.
Protesting against the Vietnam War was another way of showing the finger to the establishment.
The pictures of violence and destruction or of North Vietnamese claims how the civilian population suffered from American bombings made this an easy topic to take up and stick it to the man.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 09:19:28 PMNo shit. What does this have to do you with your previous comment?
Packing up and going home implies good faith from the start, which I don't think can be assumed. Maintaining a military presence in the region and supporting a corrupt, unpopular, repressive regime whose help you have in the region is imperialism. It's not that dissimilar from the British use of the Maharajahs. The only real difference I can see is that the US didn't encourage the North Vietnamese.
QuoteAgain, how was it an imperial war? Imperial wars are fought to aquire territory, subjugate states, plant colonies. Not very different from colonial wars.
That's a very narrow definition and one I'd attach more to colonialism. It would exclude, for example, European imperialism in much of the Middle East and China during the 19th century. So actually I disagree with Zanza. I think the geostrategic imperialism was a very 19th century concern. 19th century empire building was as much about the Great Game in Persia and Central Asia and the Pashas in Egypt as it was the white settlers in Kenya. The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them.
QuoteI guess I should clarify that it shouldn't be limited to European views on the American involvement on October 8th 2012, but European views at the time and in general. The answers I've gotten is that it was imperialism, with out much elaborations as to why or what that means in this context, and that the US used chemical defoliates and strategic and tactical bombing (presumably if the US didn't use either one everything would be hunky dory).
As I say I think a lot of it was to do with a generational culture war in Europe. There was one within the left to do with the rise of the New Left. And there was a wider culture war against the post-war order, of which the Atlantic alliance and a certain pro-Americanism was a key part.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 03:37:16 AM
The issue people had with Vietnam was more with the American methods than their helping South Vietnam.
Well, I have an issue with the way we fought the Vietnam War, too, but I don't think that my view of how it should have been done differently is in line with European views.
I think there might be a kind of inexplicable divide in terms of how people interpret "imperialism" or "colonialism." The version of conquering land or establishing trading entrepots has is certainly imperialism, but it denies the imperialism that plays out in daily life and perhaps more importantly, in the definition of what is a credible argumentative position.
I do think, though, that the Vietnam War and how it was fought presented did a lot over here to enforce the picture of an America that will do anything to enforce its interests, and put their stamp on other countries whether they like it or not. This came up again during the arms race of the 80s, when Germans rose en masse to protest against the stationing of new nuclear missiles in their country*, and most recently with GWB and the Iraq War, and its still a prevalent image in certain circles.
*In fact, after Kohl took power in '82 he was ready to say 'no' to the Americans about that because of the pressure, and he had to be brought back in line by Washington.
That's interesting I thought that the anti-Vietnam protests in Germany was the start of what became the 80s peace movements and, I think, the Greens (and to a lesser extent?) the Left. While in the UK they drew on the older CND campaign but also student radicalism - I think Daniel Cohn-Bendit came to the UK to speak at anti-war protests.
I think the Imperialist label stems not so much from american actions but rather from the internal problems of European societies dealing with their own histories and political ideologies.
The Soviets called everybody who wan't a socialist an imperialist. Period. People with sympathies for the Eastern Bloc were always going to call whatever the US did Imperialist because the US was the enemy of the USSR and the enemy of Communism (in the minds of communists) was Imperialism and Fascism. Anybody wishing to get along with sympathizers of the eastern bloc would have to adopt that language as well.
The Europeans did do Imperialism. It just is easier to come to terms with crimes in your past by convincing yourself that everybody is just as bad. In a sense, the more vile and disgusting the imperialism carried out by your European country the more anti-american your country was after 1968. The more willing your country was to justify it's imperialism as benign the more likely it was to be pro american. It redeems the sins of your past to see those sins omitted today and fought against today.
It just isn't imperialism when your goal is to establish a functioning legitimate democratic government. That was the policy of the US during decolonization and it was the policy of the US after decolonization. You can argue the morality of supporting a dictator to prevent the communists from taking power; but you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.
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).
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:08:16 AM
but you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.
This statement is false, unless you are going to claim that every country during the period from 1950 until 1990 was under a threat of a communist putsch or invasion, or if you count a democratically elected government with communist sympathies to be "a communist putsch".
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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).
Would the average European even know what the Trail of Tears was?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 09, 2012, 01:39:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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).
Would the average European even know what the Trail of Tears was?
Imperialist murder and conquest of Indian lands.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:43:32 AM
Imperialist murder and conquest of Indian lands.
Are you positing yourself as an "average European"?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 01:49:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:43:32 AM
Imperialist murder and conquest of Indian lands.
Are you positing yourself as an "average European"?
No, I'm saying that the this is what the average European thinks.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:51:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
No matter what your view on Vietnam, I am not sure how you could actually compare those two as being of a kind that makes any comparison valid in any way at all.
Agreed.
But is the daft comparison intended to say "what the US did in Vietnam is just like Auschwitz, AmeriKKKa = Hitler!!!1!!!" or is it supposed to say "you can't say anything bad about the US in Vietnam becaus HITLER!!!1"
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 01:56:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
I think the point here is that someone was comparing US involvement in Vietnam to Auschwitz.
No matter what your view on Vietnam, I am not sure how you could actually compare those two as being of a kind that makes any comparison valid in any way at all.
Agreed.
But is the daft comparison intended to say "what the US did in Vietnam is just like Auschwitz, AmeriKKKa = Hitler!!!1!!!" or is it supposed to say "you can't say anything bad about the US in Vietnam becaus HITLER!!!1"
It was the first. The (ham-fisted) point of the thing was to say Europe and America are all the same.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 01:55:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:51:52 AM
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.
Yeah, I don't think the average person would know about the Trail of Tears.
Though they would know the broad simplified history of Americans killing the natives and taking their land.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 01:05:31 AM
That's interesting I thought that the anti-Vietnam protests in Germany was the start of what became the 80s peace movements and, I think, the Greens (and to a lesser extent?) the Left.
They were certainly a kernel for the peace movement. Still, peace movement and "AmeriKKKa is evyl!" were going hand in hand. Or rather, war, under any circumstances, is evil, therefore countries claiming to stand up for positive values and yet going to (offensive) war are evil.
Quote from: Tyr on October 09, 2012, 02:07:24 AM
Yeah, I don't think the average person would know about the Trail of Tears.
Though they would know the broad simplified history of Americans killing the natives and taking their land.
Surely Eurocommies should be sympathetic to squatters coming in and taking over from absentee landlords? :hmm:
I'd be amazed if euros knowledgeable about what the trail of tears even refers to is over 1%.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:08:16 AMbut you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.
I'm pretty sure you can find examples of US imperialism in South and Central America that did not involve (and in some cases predates) threats of Communist putsches or invasions, unless you get ridiculously creative with your interpretation.
And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.
If you're fighting and/or spending significant amounts of money to pick which local elites rule a country as your client, especially if you thwart the popular will of the people in doing so, that's imperialism. That includes all kinds of US actions in South and Central America and it includes the involvement in Vietnam.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
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. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:08:16 AMbut you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.
I'm pretty sure you can find examples of US imperialism in South and Central America that did not involve (and in some cases predates) threats of Communist putsches or invasions, unless you get ridiculously creative with your interpretation.
And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.
If you're fighting and/or spending significant amounts of money to pick which local elites rule a country as your client, especially if you thwart the popular will of the people in doing so, that's imperialism. That includes all kinds of US actions in South and Central America and it includes the involvement in Vietnam.
Yes, the US learned that it didnt' want to be an empire in the Philippines. That is why I set the time period I referred to as Decolonization and post Decolonization.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 12:17:08 AM
That's a very narrow definition and one I'd attach more to colonialism. It would exclude, for example, European imperialism in much of the Middle East and China during the 19th century. So actually I disagree with Zanza. I think the geostrategic imperialism was a very 19th century concern. 19th century empire building was as much about the Great Game in Persia and Central Asia and the Pashas in Egypt as it was the white settlers in Kenya. The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:55 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 12:17:08 AM
That's a very narrow definition and one I'd attach more to colonialism. It would exclude, for example, European imperialism in much of the Middle East and China during the 19th century. So actually I disagree with Zanza. I think the geostrategic imperialism was a very 19th century concern. 19th century empire building was as much about the Great Game in Persia and Central Asia and the Pashas in Egypt as it was the white settlers in Kenya. The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them.
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.
Still with Yi here. If American efforts can be described Imperialistic, should the Soviet Union, PRC, and North Vietnam itself also be considered imperialistic? If so it's sort of a wash. What war isn't considered Imperialistic?
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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.
I don't like this idea that the correctness of a series of actions is determined by whether you can stick a particular label on it or not.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 05:16:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Syt on October 09, 2012, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 05:16:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2012, 06:13:04 AM
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.
Its not the Europeans being hypocritical. Its the Europeans taking a swing at American hypocrisy. :contract:
Quote from: Tyr on October 09, 2012, 06:24:05 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2012, 06:13:04 AM
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.
Its not the Europeans being hypocritical. Its the Europeans taking a swing at American hypocrisy. :contract:
No. Not at all in this case. Most Americans would say what was done was bad. It was also far enough in the past that it is kind of hard to 'fix' it. When Spain and its successor states in the Americas starts making payouts to the survivors of its genocides I'll acknowledge the hypocrisy on the US' part.
Quote from: Tyr on October 09, 2012, 06:24:05 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2012, 06:13:04 AM
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.
Its not the Europeans being hypocritical. Its the Europeans taking a swing at American hypocrisy. wanting Americans to be guilty as they are. :contract:
Fixed your post.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:08:16 AMbut you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.
I'm pretty sure you can find examples of US imperialism in South and Central America that did not involve (and in some cases predates) threats of Communist putsches or invasions, unless you get ridiculously creative with your interpretation.
And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.
If you're fighting and/or spending significant amounts of money to pick which local elites rule a country as your client, especially if you thwart the popular will of the people in doing so, that's imperialism. That includes all kinds of US actions in South and Central America and it includes the involvement in Vietnam.
Define client here. What you are describing could be applied to nearly any defensive war ever.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 05:13:10 AM
Still with Yi here. If American efforts can be described Imperialistic, should the Soviet Union, PRC, and North Vietnam itself also be considered imperialistic? If so it's sort of a wash. What war isn't considered Imperialistic?
Wait has anybody ever suggested the Soviet Union or the PRC were/are not Imperialistic? Granted the PRC prefers a more localized empire.
I mean the Imperialistic tendency of the Soviets was why we did our Imperialesque shit in the Cold War to begin with.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 07:28:34 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 09, 2012, 06:24:05 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2012, 06:13:04 AM
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.
Its not the Europeans being hypocritical. Its the Europeans taking a swing at American hypocrisy. wanting Americans to be guilty as they are. :contract:
Fixed your post.
Euros do not seem all that guilt ridin. The Germans make a good show of it but their smugness shines through.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 05:13:10 AM
Still with Yi here. If American efforts can be described Imperialistic, should the Soviet Union, PRC, and North Vietnam itself also be considered imperialistic? If so it's sort of a wash. What war isn't considered Imperialistic?
Wait has anybody ever suggested the Soviet Union or the PRC were/are not Imperialistic?
No, but it appears Europeans hold Americans to higher ideals than oppressive regimes.
Quote from: Syt on October 09, 2012, 08:27:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 05:13:10 AM
Still with Yi here. If American efforts can be described Imperialistic, should the Soviet Union, PRC, and North Vietnam itself also be considered imperialistic? If so it's sort of a wash. What war isn't considered Imperialistic?
Wait has anybody ever suggested the Soviet Union or the PRC were/are not Imperialistic?
No, but it appears Europeans hold Americans to higher ideals than oppressive regimes.
Or perhaps white people to higher standard then East Asians...
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:30:39 AM
Or perhaps white people to higher standard then East Asians...
When you are the world power and you publicly announce that you are an exceptional country the rest of the world should be inspired by, you do tend to be held to a higher standard.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 05:13:10 AM
Still with Yi here. If American efforts can be described Imperialistic, should the Soviet Union, PRC, and North Vietnam itself also be considered imperialistic? If so it's sort of a wash. What war isn't considered Imperialistic?
Wait has anybody ever suggested the Soviet Union or the PRC were/are not Imperialistic? Granted the PRC prefers a more localized empire.
Communists and sympathizers.
QuoteDavid Horowitz was then a member of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. He confirms that the Russell Tribunal never held any intention of investigating alleged Communist atrocities. In his memoirs, Horowitz describes overhearing Jean-Paul Sartre insist that the North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front were, by definition, incapable of committing war crimes. "I refuse to place," said Sartre, "in the same category the actions of an organization of poor peasants... and those of an immense army backed by a highly organized country."
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:33:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:30:39 AM
Or perhaps white people to higher standard then East Asians...
When you are the world power and you publicly announce that you are an exceptional country the rest of the world should be inspired by, you do tend to be held to a higher standard.
What country doesn't announce they are an exceptional country? Besides the same could be said for both China and the Soviet Union in the 1960's and 1970's.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
Communists and sympathizers.
Wait so people who get their talking points from the Soviet Union had only positive things to say? Shocking.
Well, I think people over here want the U.S. to be the good guys, to take the high road, not realizing that while there's a big overlap between Europe and the U.S. in ideas and culture, there's also significant differences - see gun laws, violence vs. eroticism in media, etc.
Still, a popular nickname for the U.S. in Germany is the "land of unlimited possibilities." It had a very positive connotation, these days it's often used in a cynical or satirical way when another supposedly crazy story is in the tabloids.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2012, 06:13:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:36:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
Communists and sympathizers.
Wait so people who get their talking points from the Soviet Union had only positive things to say? Shocking.
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"?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:36:33 AM
What country doesn't announce they are an exceptional country? Besides the same could be said for both China and the Soviet Union in the 1960's and 1970's.
Not every country declares itself to be a global force of good and shining city on a hill to be an inspiration to the world. And the others do not have their Head of State's speeches broadcast internationally so nobody else knows about it.
And the prententions of the Soviets and the Maoist Chinese were well known and the fact they failed to meet those standards was, indeed, something that hurt them. You may have noticed the Soviet Union and Maoist Revolution are not really going strong anymore.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:41:11 AM
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"?
Sartre? He might as well have.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:41:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:36:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
Communists and sympathizers.
Wait so people who get their talking points from the Soviet Union had only positive things to say? Shocking.
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"?
They had stopped listening to the "Soviet Union = Good" part of the Soviet Narrative. They did continue to listen to the "USA = Bad" part of the narrative and when Soviet evil came to light (in hungary and the prague spring) they created their own narrative "USA is Just as bad as Soviet Union which has betrayed true socialism."
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:47:33 AM
Not every country declares itself to be a global force of good and shining city on a hill to be an inspiration to the world.
We've been calling ourselves a city on a hill for nearly 400 years, doesn't really have anything to do with late 20th century foreign policy. And China's opinion of itself makes ours seem a paragon of humility.
Quote from: Syt on October 09, 2012, 08:36:59 AM
Well, I think people over here want the U.S. to be the good guys, to take the high road, not realizing that while there's a big overlap between Europe and the U.S. in ideas and culture, there's also significant differences - see gun laws, violence vs. eroticism in media, etc.
Still, a popular nickname for the U.S. in Germany is the "land of unlimited possibilities." It had a very positive connotation, these days it's often used in a cynical or satirical way when another supposedly crazy story is in the tabloids.
These are minor differences compared to democracy, individual rights etc. It's an expression of what Kissinger observed about academic quarrels. They were so intense because the stakes were so low.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 08:53:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 08:47:33 AM
Not every country declares itself to be a global force of good and shining city on a hill to be an inspiration to the world.
We've been calling ourselves a city on a hill for nearly 400 years, doesn't really have anything to do with late 20th century foreign policy. And China's opinion of itself makes ours seem a paragon of humility.
France and Britain did precisely the same thing as well. The reason this annoys people is that it remains true.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 08:53:21 AM
We've been calling ourselves a city on a hill for nearly 400 years, doesn't really have anything to do with late 20th century foreign policy.
Yes it has everything to do with it. And I think it is a good thing. We hold ourselves to a higher standard and others do as well.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 08:55:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 01:55:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:51:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2012, 08:37:41 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2012, 06:13:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:55 AM
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.
QuoteStill 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.
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteActually 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
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 09:01:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 08:55:41 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2012, 10:00:40 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 10:28:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 02:26:31 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
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. :mad:
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? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2012, 06:13:04 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 09, 2012, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 05:16:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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"? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 10:58:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 02:26:31 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
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. :mad:
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? :huh:
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 10:58:26 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:51:32 AM
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.
The Roosevelt administration really did horribly with France, both with Vichy and with the Free French. In the end it would not have mattered if it had not angered De Gaulle so much.
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2012, 11:25:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 02:26:31 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
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. :mad:
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? :huh:
:huh:
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.
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
Well we did kill millions of Germans. That at least had to take the sting out a little bit.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
There was the Saar offensive, which was enough to indicate to the French that they had no offensive capability.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
Or the Poles helping the Czechs out instead of helping themselves to Zaolzie.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:51:32 AM
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.
Well you said: "The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them."
I think to large extent we did that during the wars.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
Neither of those things would have done much for Poland. It does not refute the fact that the UK went to war because of Germany's invasion of Poland.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:51:32 AM
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.
Yeah... (and this is @ Yi as well)...
WWI was not imperialist for the US (at least in the European theatre, I think there were some imperialist consequences elsewhere) as it didn't dictate how the war was fought and it didn't install client rulers in allied or vanquished states in the aftermath, and it didn't have any particular say in other countries after the war. I don't know too much about events outside of the European theatre so I can't say too much; I'd characterize American policy in China as imperialist, but mostly they rode on the coat tails of other European imperialist powers there.
The war part of WWII was not imperialist from an American perspective. The US entered the war in response to a direct attack on its sovereign territory by another major power. You could argue that the US acted as an imperialist in the aftermath of WWII, but I think the way it dealt with Western Europe (incl. W. Germany) and Japan undermines that argument. Given the conditions, those countries took full control of their own internal and foreign policies. So yeah, not imperialist.
We've been talking about the US because that's the question that's been asked, but to bring up some other countries, I'd rate the USSR as being significantly more imperialist than the US. It clearly kept Eastern Europe as client states whereas the US did not. So relative to the Soviet Union the US was less imperialist. Russia seems to be acting rather imperialist where it can get away with it, with or without wars.
I'd rate Iran's (and Syria's) meddling in Lebanon as clearly imperialist. I suspect you could make a pretty strong case that Saudi Arabia is using Wahabism et. al. as an imperialist tool as well.
China... well, if you consider Tibet (and to a lesser extent Taiwan) independent nations, then China is pretty brazenly imperialist as well.
As for other US actions - I'd consider the intervention in Libya to not be imperialist. The US is not involved in setting the agenda for a future Libya, the Libyan people is (thanks to the US). Getting into Afghanistan was not imperialist as it was a legitimate response to an act of war (and an egregious one at that); there is a risk that mission creep turns it imperialist, but as long as the US is aiming to get out and not dictate the future of Afghanistan then I'd be inclined to rate it as not imperialist.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 01:08:16 AMbut you cannot deny that where there was no threat of a communist putsch or invasion there was no support for dictators.
I'm pretty sure you can find examples of US imperialism in South and Central America that did not involve (and in some cases predates) threats of Communist putsches or invasions, unless you get ridiculously creative with your interpretation.
And even so, just because your imperialist ambition is to thwart another imperialist power does not make your actions non-imperialist.
If you're fighting and/or spending significant amounts of money to pick which local elites rule a country as your client, especially if you thwart the popular will of the people in doing so, that's imperialism. That includes all kinds of US actions in South and Central America and it includes the involvement in Vietnam.
I'll grant you that US policy in Latin America from roughly the mid1890s up to the mid-20th century or so was often imperialistic. We had considerable economic interests there, and occasionally propped up or installed local governments that we thought would favor those economic interests, and more frequently sent the navy down there to intimidate local officials to set policies to our liking. But none of that applies to Indochina--for all intents and purposes, we had no economic interests there.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 01:05:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:51:32 AM
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.
Well you said: "The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them."
I think to large extent we did that during the wars.
You didn't have much say about the local elites in WWI, as far as I'm aware.
In WWII you did, but you did not enter into the war to preserve client elites. Furthermore, you did not side with the elites against the populace (mostly, at least in Europe, except I suppose in Greece).
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 01:12:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:51:32 AM
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.
Yeah... (and this is @ Yi as well)...
WWI was not imperialist for the US (at least in the European theatre, I think there were some imperialist consequences elsewhere) as it didn't dictate how the war was fought and it didn't install client rulers in allied or vanquished states in the aftermath, and it didn't have any particular say in other countries after the war. I don't know too much about events outside of the European theatre so I can't say too much; I'd characterize American policy in China as imperialist, but mostly they rode on the coat tails of other European imperialist powers there.
The war part of WWII was not imperialist from an American perspective. The US entered the war in response to a direct attack on its sovereign territory by another major power. You could argue that the US acted as an imperialist in the aftermath of WWII, but I think the way it dealt with Western Europe (incl. W. Germany) and Japan undermines that argument. Given the conditions, those countries took full control of their own internal and foreign policies. So yeah, not imperialist.
We've been talking about the US because that's the question that's been asked, but to bring up some other countries, I'd rate the USSR as being significantly more imperialist than the US. It clearly kept Eastern Europe as client states whereas the US did not. So relative to the Soviet Union the US was less imperialist. Russia seems to be acting rather imperialist where it can get away with it, with or without wars.
I'd rate Iran's (and Syria's) meddling in Lebanon as clearly imperialist. I suspect you could make a pretty strong case that Saudi Arabia is using Wahabism et. al. as an imperialist tool as well.
China... well, if you consider Tibet (and to a lesser extent Taiwan) independent nations, then China is pretty brazenly imperialist as well.
As for other US actions - I'd consider the intervention in Libya to not be imperialist. The US is not involved in setting the agenda for a future Libya, the Libyan people is (thanks to the US). Getting into Afghanistan was not imperialist as it was a legitimate response to an act of war (and an egregious one at that); there is a risk that mission creep turns it imperialist, but as long as the US is aiming to get out and not dictate the future of Afghanistan then I'd be inclined to rate it as not imperialist.
By your own definition, how the fuck was what we did in Germany and Japan after WWII
not imperialistic? We divided Germany into zones under military rule of us and the other Allied powers, and put Japan under our sole military rule, then imposed a constitution of our devising on them. That's a hell of a lot more imperialistic (again, by your definition) than anything we did in South Vietnam.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2012, 12:17:34 PM
There was the Saar offensive, which was enough to indicate to the French that they had no offensive capability.
That wasn't an offensive; that was a drive in the countryside, and a drive back home in time for dinner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 01:23:10 PM
That wasn't an offensive; that was a drive in the countryside, and a drive back home in time for dinner.
Heh in today's world it would be a blood bath that would have newspapers and media howling in fury. 1,000 men dead in one week?! PULL OUT THE TROOPS!
Of course Gamelin did just that.
Quote from: Gups on October 09, 2012, 12:58:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
Or the Poles helping the Czechs out instead of helping themselves to Zaolzie.
Yes, it's often forgotten that Poland was an unpleasant right wing military dictatorship, that didn't get along with its neighbour and iirc event enacted some anti-Semitic legislation in 38.
No one expect the Poles to last more than a couple of months against the Germans, and the Poles only hoped for 3 months, that was assuming they conducted a organised fighting retreat into a Polish redoubt, the plan was then the winter weather and 'something' turning up would save them.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 01:05:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:51:32 AM
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.
Well you said: "The usual approach was not to acquire territory or to subjugate states, but to work with local elites, often with shared interests, and to preserve them."
I think to large extent we did that during the wars.
You didn't have much say about the local elites in WWI, as far as I'm aware.
In WWII you did, but you did not enter into the war to preserve client elites. Furthermore, you did not side with the elites against the populace (mostly, at least in Europe, except I suppose in Greece).
Of course we did. The local elites just happened to be European powers. We sided with Britain despite the fact it's government wasn't favored by the people of India (or Ireland). We also preserved the Soviet Union in WWII despite the fact that population and elites didn't seem to get along. In fact, this can be said about almost everybody in WWI and WWII. Britain preserved France and Belgium in WWI and there were lots of people in the colonies that didn't like their home country.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 01:23:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2012, 12:17:34 PM
There was the Saar offensive, which was enough to indicate to the French that they had no offensive capability.
That wasn't an offensive; that was a drive in the countryside, and a drive back home in time for dinner.
And back in the real world, that's precisely what well off Americans did or aspired to, for another 65 pleasant weekends.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 01:23:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2012, 12:17:34 PM
There was the Saar offensive, which was enough to indicate to the French that they had no offensive capability.
That wasn't an offensive; that was a drive in the countryside, and a drive back home in time for dinner.
And back in the real world, that's precisely what well off Americans did or aspired to, for another 65 pleasant weekends.
And your point?
I seem to recall President Washington's sage words of avoiding "European entanglements". Already did it once by then, just to watch you assrape your opponent against Wilson's advice, sowing the seeds for yet another war you people couldn't manage to get out of the way of.
Way to go with that whole Versailles thing, fellas. Top notch diplomacy, what what.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 01:42:37 PM
Way to go with that whole Versailles thing, fellas. Top notch diplomacy, what what.
They made up for it at Munich.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 12:12:31 PMWell we did kill millions of Germans.
No. Unless "we" includes the Soviet Union.
Once again, Europeans. :rolleyes:
They have got be be the neediest useless fucks in the world. Can't even take out mummar without big daddy's help.
God, I'd love an isolationist America.
Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2012, 01:46:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 12:12:31 PMWell we did kill millions of Germans.
No. Unless "we" includes the Soviet Union.
Lend-lease lets us take credit for a lot of casualties inflicted by the Soviets. :p:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 01:48:17 PM
Once again, Europeans. :rolleyes:
They have got be be the neediest useless fucks in the world. Can't even take out mummar without big daddy's help.
God, I'd love an isolationist America.
North Vietnam would have agreed with you. :contract:
Ed protests too much. Deep down he wants to be the worst kind of European. French :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 01:48:17 PM
Once again, Europeans. :rolleyes:
They have got be be the neediest useless fucks in the world. Can't even take out mummar without big daddy's help.
God, I'd love an isolationist America.
You're as sensitive as a teenage girl Ed :lol:
Quote from: HVC on October 09, 2012, 01:51:57 PM
Ed protests too much. Deep down he wants to be the worst kind of European. French :P
At least they'll get their hands dirty. The Brits? They whine about the special relationship. The kraut? Neutered into a pussy race of shit fetishists.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 01:48:17 PM
God, I'd love an isolationist America.
Bah, I prefer the world to be our battered wife. Wants us out of the house, but can't afford for us to leave.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 01:52:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 01:48:17 PM
Once again, Europeans. :rolleyes:
They have got be be the neediest useless fucks in the world. Can't even take out mummar without big daddy's help.
God, I'd love an isolationist America.
You're as sensitive as a teenage girl Ed :lol:
Don't get me started on the Danes. I'll break my iPad screen typing furiously.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 01:48:17 PM
God, I'd love an isolationist America.
Bah, I prefer the world to be our battered wife. Wants us out of the house, but can't afford for us to leave.
The keep nagging us during
Sportscenter.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 01:55:13 PMDon't get me started on the Danes. I'll break my iPad screen typing furiously.
So? You're American! You can easily afford another one.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 09, 2012, 01:51:57 PM
Ed protests too much. Deep down he wants to be the worst kind of European. French :P
At least they'll get their hands dirty.
No shit. God Bless the French. They're like little Americans. Little, pissy Americans. But at least they like their wet ops.
:lol:
In my experience the average european knows less about the Vietnam war than the average American. And the average American knows very little and what they know is wrong.
Hans!
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 09, 2012, 01:59:13 PM
In my experience the average european knows less about the Vietnam war than the average American. And the average American knows very little and what they know is wrong.
Sounds about right :)
Speaking of Vietnam, I always found wargames on the war to be boring. Either a bug hunt in a map of green, or too much crap to deal with on a strategic level.
Except the air portion.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 09, 2012, 02:06:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2012, 01:59:53 PM
Hans!
In the flesh. Well, not really.
Hey, Hans hows it going ?
We need some of your 'coverage' of the presidential campaign. :cheers:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 02:08:05 PM
Speaking of Vietnam, I always found wargames on the war to be boring. Either a bug hunt in a map of green, or too much crap to deal with on a strategic level.
Except the air portion.
Conflict in Vietnam was solid-- for the 80s anyway. The Dien Bien Phu mission was lame, but the others were really good.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 09, 2012, 01:59:13 PM
In my experience the average european knows less about the Vietnam war than the average American. And the average American knows very little and what they know is wrong.
:lol:
An excellent and succinct analysis :cool:
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 02:08:59 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 09, 2012, 02:06:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2012, 01:59:53 PM
Hans!
In the flesh. Well, not really.
Hey, Hans hows it going ?
We need some of your 'coverage' of the presidential campaign. :cheers:
Things are going quite well, particularly since I left the last FOB where I spent a month receiving 107mm rocket arty everyday, while we never returned fire since we might accidentally hit a civilian. I got three more weeks until I pop smoke.
I'm not sure what got me thinking about responding to a thread about Vietnam. A war that seems to never end, in a country on the other side of the world, in order to back up a hopelessly corrupt govt and a military that won't fight against a ruthless, radical enemy supported by a hostile neighboring country that we are reluctant to confront.
As far as the presidential campaign, it is unfolding as I expected. As I stated months ago in another thread Romney will win by a comfortable margin. All the indicators have long pointed in that direction.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 02:08:05 PM
Speaking of Vietnam, I always found wargames on the war to be boring. Either a bug hunt in a map of green, or too much crap to deal with on a strategic level.
Except the air portion.
The problem is that the Vietnam war is more a political war than a kinetic war, so a traditional war game model simply doesn't work at capturing the conflict.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
And how does this support Barrister's claim that the UK (and Canada) "defended Poland" in 1939?
Quote from: Gups on October 09, 2012, 12:58:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
Or the Poles helping the Czechs out instead of helping themselves to Zaolzie.
And how does this support Barrister's claim that the UK (and Canada) "defended Poland" in 1939?
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 01:27:00 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 09, 2012, 12:58:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
Or the Poles helping the Czechs out instead of helping themselves to Zaolzie.
Yes, it's often forgotten that Poland was an unpleasant right wing military dictatorship, that didn't get along with its neighbour and iirc event enacted some anti-Semitic legislation in 38.
No one expect the Poles to last more than a couple of months against the Germans, and the Poles only hoped for 3 months, that was assuming they conducted a organised fighting retreat into a Polish redoubt, the plan was then the winter weather and 'something' turning up would save them.
AAnd how does this support Barrister's claim that the UK (and Canada) "defended Poland" in 1939?
That's obnoxious.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:48 PM
That's obnoxious.
I think it's obnoxious to respond to someone's post and post something completely irrelevant to the point of that post.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:48 PM
That's obnoxious.
I think it's obnoxious to respond to someone's post and post something completely irrelevant to the point of that post.
Like you just did three times in a row.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:48 PM
That's obnoxious.
I think it's obnoxious to respond to someone's post and post something completely irrelevant to the point of that post.
Like you just did three times in a row.
Deleted my response as that was rather good. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:48 PM
That's obnoxious.
I think it's obnoxious to respond to someone's post and post something completely irrelevant to the point of that post.
Like you just did three times in a row.
How so?
Barrister posted that the UK and Canada "defended Poland".
I replied that they didn't do anything to defend Poland.
To this CdM replied that neither did France (true but so what?)
To this Gups replied that Poland annexed Zaolzie (true but so what?)
To this mongers replied that Poland was a right wing dictatorship (somewhat true, in a mongers-is-brain-damaged-so-he-does-not-get-nuance way, but so what?)
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 03:00:14 PM
How so?
Your generic comment had nothing to do with their replies.
Anyway, didn't both of those nations go to war as a result of Germany's moves? Now they may have not ultimately done much to prevent the annexation of Poland but then if you look at end results, US was ultimately not very successful at preventing the annexation of South Vietnam.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 02:45:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
This campaign has done nothing for Poland, which was overrun before it even began. Now, again, noone blames you for "not dying for Danzig" but don't expect gratitude.
You know, I don't recall French troops pouring over the Rhine or the Royal Navy sortieing to draw out the fleet at Kiel on September 2nd, 1939, either.
And how does this support Barrister's claim that the UK (and Canada) "defended Poland" in 1939?
It doesn't, you overly hysterical fuckhead.
Last time I support the argument that Poland was abandoned by the Western powers in 1939 again. Hope they gas your shrill ass next time, you assbunny.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2012, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:48 PM
That's obnoxious.
I think it's obnoxious to respond to someone's post and post something completely irrelevant to the point of that post.
Like you just did three times in a row.
How so?
Barrister posted that the UK and Canada "defended Poland".
I replied that they didn't do anything to defend Poland.
To this CdM replied that neither did France (true but so what?)
To this Gups replied that Poland annexed Zaolzie (true but so what?)
To this mongers replied that Poland was a right wing dictatorship (somewhat true, in a mongers-is-brain-damaged-so-he-does-not-get-nuance way, but so what?)
They did declare war on Germany when Poland was invaded as per treaty obligations. The UK did bomb Germany in September of 1939 as well.
If you're the UK (and Canada), and you're going to defend Poland in September 1939, you'd do pretty much exactly what the UK did. Go onto a war footing in order to ultimately defeat Nazi Germany. The UK (and Canada) did not have the means to defend Poland itself in 1939, but took the steps that did ultimately lead to its liberation.
Like I said you can blame the Allies for letting the Soviets get a grip on the country if you want, but I don't see how they can be faulted in 1939. After all they could just as easily have followed the example of Czeckoslovakia a few months earlier and do nothing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
It doesn't describe all geopolitics as imperialism and certainly wouldn't include defensive wars.
Vietnam was a defensive war. :huh:
Or are you using defensive war in some subtle way that I'm missing?
Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2012, 01:46:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 12:12:31 PMWell we did kill millions of Germans.
No. Unless "we" includes the Soviet Union.
Really? I figured those giant firestorms that leveled those cities took out at least 1 million.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
It doesn't describe all geopolitics as imperialism and certainly wouldn't include defensive wars.
Vietnam was a defensive war. :huh:
Or are you using defensive war in some subtle way that I'm missing?
Yeah, I thought that odd too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
It doesn't describe all geopolitics as imperialism and certainly wouldn't include defensive wars.
Vietnam was a defensive war. :huh:
Or are you using defensive war in some subtle way that I'm missing?
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US. I do recall the US proping up another government. Is that what you mean by defensive Yi?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
Marti is 1930s Poland, he's a bit extreme, abrasive, not easy to get on with and his neighbours don't like him.
Consequently when he is threatened by a bully, people will reluctantly say and do 'the right thing', but it will be somewhat half-hearted.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
It doesn't describe all geopolitics as imperialism and certainly wouldn't include defensive wars.
Vietnam was a defensive war. :huh:
Or are you using defensive war in some subtle way that I'm missing?
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US. I do recall the US proping up another government. Is that what you mean by defensive Yi?
South Vietnam was and we defended them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US. I do recall the US proping up another government. Is that what you mean by defensive Yi?
I don't recall Hitler attacking Britain. I don't recall Saddam attacking anyone other than Kuwait. Is that what you mean by propping up another government cc?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
I think you are being ironic here.
The one where the US attacked North Korean boats to give the pretext for congressional authorization.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 03:22:00 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2012, 01:46:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 12:12:31 PMWell we did kill millions of Germans.
No. Unless "we" includes the Soviet Union.
Really? I figured those giant firestorms that leveled those cities took out at least 1 million.
No. About 400k.
Germany lost to the Soviet Union. The Allies were just a sideshow.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US. I do recall the US proping up another government. Is that what you mean by defensive Yi?
I don't recall Hitler attacking Britain. I don't recall Saddam attacking anyone other than Kuwait. Is that what you mean by propping up another government cc?
I am not sure what Hitler attacking Britain has to do with your argument. Britain entered because of treaty obligations. The US entered Vietnam under a pretext generated by the US. The war in the Gulf is a good example of US imperialist tendancies so I am not sure how much that helps you.
You dont understand the meaning of prop up?
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
It doesn't describe all geopolitics as imperialism and certainly wouldn't include defensive wars.
Vietnam was a defensive war. :huh:
Or are you using defensive war in some subtle way that I'm missing?
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US. I do recall the US proping up another government. Is that what you mean by defensive Yi?
South Vietnam was and we defended them.
Stay away, the adults are talking now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:33:54 PM
I am not sure what Hitler attacking Britain has to do with your argument. Britain entered because of treaty obligations. The US entered Vietnam under a pretext generated by the US. The war in the Gulf is a good example of US imperialist tendancies so I am not sure how much that helps you.
You dont understand the meaning of prop up?
So Gulf War I, which was fought on the basis of the UN article calling for mutual defense against aggression, is an imperialist war (which paints about 40 countries, including the likes of Norway and Denmark, with the imperialist brush) yet Britain gets a pass for WWII because they publicly pledged to defend Poland. OK, it's getting a lot clearer now.
Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2012, 03:33:36 PM
No. About 400k.
Germany lost to the Soviet Union. The Allies were just a sideshow.
Oh come on. Surely all the Germans we killed in WWII adds up to at least a million.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:34:36 PM
Stay away, the adults are talking now.
You may be my elder but I haven't seen anything here that suggests a compelling reason to defer to you. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:33:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
I dont recall the North vietnamese attacking the US. I do recall the US proping up another government. Is that what you mean by defensive Yi?
I don't recall Hitler attacking Britain. I don't recall Saddam attacking anyone other than Kuwait. Is that what you mean by propping up another government cc?
I am not sure what Hitler attacking Britain has to do with your argument. Britain entered because of treaty obligations. The US entered Vietnam under a pretext generated by the US. The war in the Gulf is a good example of US imperialist tendancies so I am not sure how much that helps you.
You dont understand the meaning of prop up?
Didn't the US sign a treaty with South Vietnam?
Sure it was a defensive war, but it was a war in defence of a local dictator the US had selected, whom the US maintained in the face of overwhelming opposition from the populace, and whom the US countenanced being overthrown when they soured on him sufficiently.
That's a pretty textbook case of propping up client regime, it seems to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:42:22 PMSo Gulf War I, which was fought on the basis of the UN article calling for mutual defense against aggression, is an imperialist war (which paints about 40 countries, including the likes of Norway and Denmark, with the imperialist brush) yet Britain gets a pass for WWII because they publicly pledged to defend Poland. OK, it's getting a lot clearer now.
Yi, what's your definition of an imperialist war?
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Sure it was a defensive war, but it was a war in defence of a local dictator the US had selected, whom the US maintained in the face of overwhelming opposition from the populace, and whom the US countenanced being overthrown when they soured on him sufficiently.
That's a pretty textbook case of propping up client regime, it seems to me.
Wait, how do you know there was "overwhelming opposition". It's not like someone was polling people.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Sure it was a defensive war, but it was a war in defence of a local dictator the US had selected, whom the US maintained in the face of overwhelming opposition from the populace, and whom the US countenanced being overthrown when they soured on him sufficiently.
That's a pretty textbook case of propping up client regime, it seems to me.
No, Bao Dai was the king the Frogs had selected. Diem was a president chosen by the Vietnamese people in an election.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
Yi, what's your definition of an imperialist war?
A war fought to aquire colonies and/or subjugate states.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Sure it was a defensive war, but it was a war in defence of a local dictator the US had selected, whom the US maintained in the face of overwhelming opposition from the populace, and whom the US countenanced being overthrown when they soured on him sufficiently.
That's a pretty textbook case of propping up client regime, it seems to me.
No, Bao Dai was the king the Frogs had selected. Diem was a president chosen by the Vietnamese people in an election.
Didn't Diem takeover in a rigged election?
At any rate, I agree that Jacob's telling of the events seems kinda slanted considering that we knew he'd be ousted because the North would invade when we left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
Diem was a president chosen by the Vietnamese people in an election.
Yeah with 112% of the vote.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
Diem was a president chosen by the Vietnamese people in an election.
Yeah with 112% of the vote.
:rolleyes:
It was just 98%
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
Diem was a president chosen by the Vietnamese people in an election.
Yeah with 112% of the vote.
Yeah so we don't know how many people actually supported Diem.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 04:02:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
Diem was a president chosen by the Vietnamese people in an election.
Yeah with 112% of the vote.
Yeah so we don't know how many people actually supported Diem.
Well we know dude who set himself on fire apparently didn't care for Diem. So that's one against.
Wonder what happened to the Buddhist monks under the communist rule. Maybe they found someone else to light them on fire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:53:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
Yi, what's your definition of an imperialist war?
A war fought to aquire colonies and/or subjugate states.
In your opinion, has the US ever engaged in such a war?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PMNo, 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?
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 04:18:11 PM
In your opinion, has the US ever engaged in such a war?
Of course. Spanish-American War.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 03:55:21 PMDidn't Diem takeover in a rigged election?
At any rate, I agree that Jacob's telling of the events seems kinda slanted considering that we knew he'd be ousted because the North would invade when we left.
Slanted how?
Is our disagreement over what happened and how it went down, or is it about whether it's okay to call it "imperialistic"?
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 04:22:47 PM
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?
OK. But does that get you to a US-installed dictator?
A semi-honest question. I've heard the same thing said a about Syngman Rhee in South Korea, where the basis of the charge rests on the fact that Rhee was educated in the US and spoke English.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PMNo, 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?
Hmm, Republicans make a habit of tweaking voter turn out, no wonder Yi approves of Diem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 04:24:40 PMOf course. Spanish-American War.
... but since then, no imperialistic adventures? The Spanish-American War is about as far as you can go in describing a war as being imperialistic?
What are, in your opinion, the salient differences that make the Spanish-American War imperialistic, but not the Vietnam one?
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 04:31:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 03:55:21 PMDidn't Diem takeover in a rigged election?
At any rate, I agree that Jacob's telling of the events seems kinda slanted considering that we knew he'd be ousted because the North would invade when we left.
Slanted how?
Is our disagreement over what happened and how it went down, or is it about whether it's okay to call it "imperialistic"?
I think what you provided was an edited view on what happened.
That said I can see how one would could describe the Vietnam War as imperialistic but I don't think anyone has provided a concrete definition yet that encompasses how the Vietnam War would fit in - but not other wars like WWI and WWII (i.e. European theatre) where the US had a compelling self-interest in joining the war.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 04:34:11 PM
... but since then, no imperialistic adventures? The Spanish-American War is about as far as you can go in describing a war as being imperialistic?
What are, in your opinion, the salient differences that make the Spanish-American War imperialistic, but not the Vietnam one?
I could swear I've answered this twice already. :huh:
Aquisition of colonies. Subjugation of states.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 04:34:03 PM
Hmm, Republicans make a habit of tweaking voter turn out, no wonder Yi approves of Diem.
You got it backwards as usual dumbass.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 04:59:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 04:34:03 PM
Hmm, Republicans make a habit of tweaking voter turn out, no wonder Yi approves of Diem.
You got it backwards as usual dumbass.
I see you're resorting to insult rather than trying to sustain your somewhat pathetic spin that 'Diem was chosen by his people'; it was a rigged referendum and you knew it when making the post.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 04:31:55 PMOK. But does that get you to a US-installed dictator?
It is my understanding that had the US chosen another suitable candidate, that person would've become the dictator; but the US thought that Diem was the most suitable and threw their support behind him.
I think that's close enough, yeah.
QuoteA semi-honest question.
Heh... I was hoping all your questions were honest :p
QuoteI've heard the same thing said a about Syngman Rhee in South Korea, where the basis of the charge rests on the fact that Rhee was educated in the US and spoke English.
I don't know enough about the situation in Korea to comment specifically about Syngman Rhee. Overall, the way things went in S. Korea and Japan and Germany is very much to the US's credit, IMO. The US started off in a pretty imperialist position, being intimately involved in selecting and maintaining the local government, but moved out of that position fairly quickly all things considered. Today I wouldn't consider S. Korea and Japan clients of the US at all, but allies, though at the close of the Korean War and WWII they were definitely US clients IMO.
Had the US won in Vietnam, maybe Vietnam would've gone the route of S. Korea and Japan. That wouldn't have made the war itself less imperialistic in my view, but the result could have mitigated that over time.
Certainly, the US record in that regard is much much better than the Soviets' or the British Empire for example.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
I see you're resorting to insult rather than trying to sustain your somewhat pathetic spin that 'Diem was chosen by his people'; it was a rigged referendum and you knew it when making the post.
Wrong again. I've conceded that Diem was not chosen by the people (although it hasn't exactly been demonstrated that absent the vote rigging someone else would have been elected). I'm calling you a dumbass for your attempt to Razgavorize the debate and completely botching the comparison to US politics. It's the Democrats who stuff the ballot box and Republicans who suppress votes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 04:48:26 PMI could swear I've answered this twice already. :huh:
Aquisition of colonies. Subjugation of states.
Would you consider Soviet actions in Eastern Europe and/or Afghanistan to be imperialistic?
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 05:06:09 PM
It is my understanding that had the US chosen another suitable candidate, that person would've become the dictator; but the US thought that Diem was the most suitable and threw their support behind him.
I think that's close enough, yeah.
What is this understanding based on? What levers did the US pull to get "our guy" into office?
Quote
I don't know enough about the situation in Korea to comment specifically about Syngman Rhee. Overall, the way things went in S. Korea and Japan and Germany is very much to the US's credit, IMO. The US started off in a pretty imperialist position, being intimately involved in selecting and maintaining the local government, but moved out of that position fairly quickly all things considered. Today I wouldn't consider S. Korea and Japan clients of the US at all, but allies, though at the close of the Korean War and WWII they were definitely US clients IMO.
The US was intimately involved in selecting and maintaining the South Korean government?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 05:09:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
I see you're resorting to insult rather than trying to sustain your somewhat pathetic spin that 'Diem was chosen by his people'; it was a rigged referendum and you knew it when making the post.
Wrong again. I've conceded that Diem was not chosen by the people (although it hasn't exactly been demonstrated that absent the vote rigging someone else would have been elected). I'm calling you a dumbass for your attempt to Razgavorize the debate and completely botching the comparison to US politics. It's the Democrats who stuff the ballot box and Republicans who suppress votes.
So who spins as much as you do, or is that you very own speciality ?
Christ.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 05:11:34 PM
Would you consider Soviet actions in Eastern Europe and/or Afghanistan to be imperialistic?
Eastern Europe definitely. 56 and 68 (and 48 to a certain extent) show that.
Afghanistan is a little grayer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 05:11:57 PMWhat is this understanding based on? What levers did the US pull to get "our guy" into office?
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.
QuoteThe US was intimately involved in selecting and maintaining the South Korean government?
In the aftermath of the Korean war? That is my impression, yes, but I'm happy to be educated to the contrary.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 05:19:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 05:13:19 PM
Christ.
You engaged with mongers. :P
Is it any wonder I don't 'engage' with you anymore, what with your 'au contraire' shtick having gotten old some time ago.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 05:06:09 PM
It is my understanding that had the US chosen another suitable candidate, that person would've become the dictator; but the US thought that Diem was the most suitable and threw their support behind him.
I think that's close enough, yeah.
I think that you're mistaking cause and effect here. My understanding is that it wasn't that Diem was able to take over because the US backed him and considered him "our guy"--it was more that the US (reluctantly) backed him and came to consider him "our guy" because he was the one that had taken over.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 05:09:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
I see you're resorting to insult rather than trying to sustain your somewhat pathetic spin that 'Diem was chosen by his people'; it was a rigged referendum and you knew it when making the post.
Wrong again. I've conceded that Diem was not chosen by the people (although it hasn't exactly been demonstrated that absent the vote rigging someone else would have been elected). I'm calling you a dumbass for your attempt to Razgavorize the debate and completely botching the comparison to US politics. It's the Democrats who stuff the ballot box and Republicans who suppress votes.
And to think, I said nice things about you.
Hey, you became a verb.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 03:33:54 PM
I am not sure what Hitler attacking Britain has to do with your argument. Britain entered because of treaty obligations. The US entered Vietnam under a pretext generated by the US. The war in the Gulf is a good example of US imperialist tendancies so I am not sure how much that helps you.
You dont understand the meaning of prop up?
So Gulf War I, which was fought on the basis of the UN article calling for mutual defense against aggression, is an imperialist war (which paints about 40 countries, including the likes of Norway and Denmark, with the imperialist brush) yet Britain gets a pass for WWII because they publicly pledged to defend Poland. OK, it's getting a lot clearer now.
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 include both Gulf wars in my reference to American imperialistic tendancies. Hope things are becoming clearer for you now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 06:48:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
And to think, I said nice things about you.
No you didn't. You agreed with what I said. That's not an act of kindness.
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 04:34:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 04:24:40 PMOf course. Spanish-American War.
... but since then, no imperialistic adventures? The Spanish-American War is about as far as you can go in describing a war as being imperialistic?
What are, in your opinion, the salient differences that make the Spanish-American War imperialistic, but not the Vietnam one?
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.
The salient difference between the Spanish-American War and Vietnam War was in the SA war the US exploited insurgents against Spanish rule to replace Spanish rule in Vietnam the US tried to establish a popular democratic non-communist government.
If you had asked an american to describe full success in Vietnam he would have described something like Thailand today. If you had asked the same american's great grandfather to describe full success in the SA War he would have described something like British India. That is the salient difference.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 05:27:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 05:19:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 05:13:19 PM
Christ.
You engaged with mongers. :P
Is it any wonder I don't 'engage' with you anymore, what with your 'au contraire' shtick having gotten old some time ago.
Actually we generally don't engage and I think that suits us both just fine. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 07:16:57 PMActually we generally don't engage and I think that suits us both just fine. :)
Engage schmengage, just get married already you two!
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 07:16:57 PMActually we generally don't engage and I think that suits us both just fine. :)
Engage schmengage, just get married already you two!
My gov't wouldn't recognize it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 06:59:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
And to think, I said nice things about you.
No you didn't. You agreed with what I said. That's not an act of kindness.
I said them to my self, anyway avoid blue on blue in this thread okay? I'm on your side here.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 08:14:40 PM
My gov't wouldn't recognize it.
Move to the UK. You can get a tandem bicycle and spend your evenings riding through the English countryside. :bowler:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 10:38:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 08:14:40 PM
My gov't wouldn't recognize it.
Move to the UK. You can get a tandem bicycle and spend your evenings riding through the English countryside. :bowler:
If it was that big enough of a deal for him, he wouldn't support the party that would much rather euthanize him than let him get married.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 10:38:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 08:14:40 PM
My gov't wouldn't recognize it.
Move to the UK. You can get a tandem bicycle and spend your evenings riding through the English countryside. :bowler:
I don't know how to ride a bike.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 10:43:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 10:38:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 08:14:40 PM
My gov't wouldn't recognize it.
Move to the UK. You can get a tandem bicycle and spend your evenings riding through the English countryside. :bowler:
If it was that big enough of a deal for him, he wouldn't support the party that would much rather euthanize him than let him get married.
:yawn:
Do you ever get tired of being so dull? I know I would be.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:51:46 PM
:yawn:
Do you ever get tired of being so dull? I know I would be.
Don't worry, I will continue to defend the civil liberties you willfully choose to abdicate.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:51:11 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:51:46 PM
:yawn:
Do you ever get tired of being so dull? I know I would be.
Don't worry, I will continue to defend the civil liberties you willfully choose to abdicate.
I can't think of a single vote of mine that has led to me losing liberties. I do though remember that many people came out to support Obama in 2008 and those same people voted to get rid of my right to marry in California.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 10:57:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:51:11 PM
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. :lol:
I'd rather suck a dick.
Oh that doesn't work, does it? :blush:
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 05:22:13 PMMy 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.
QuoteWait, 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.
QuoteWonder 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:18:06 PM
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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteWell 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 01:13:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 02:20:30 AM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 06:48:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 06:48:43 PM
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.
So what's with expanding the definition of "imperialism" so wide? Is it just an affinity for old leftism?
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 12:09:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2012, 11:18:06 PM
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).
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 12:09:15 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2012, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:52:32 PMNo, 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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 12:09:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2012, 12:46:45 PMNaturally, 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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2012, 12:46:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2012, 12:46:45 PMNaturally, 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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2012, 12:01:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 02:20:30 AM
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.
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?
@ 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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 02:21:19 PM
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).
So influencing other countries to promote your own economic interests is imperialism? I guess quite a few countries are guilty of that, then.
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."
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 02:32:52 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 02:32:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
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
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2012, 02:32:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 02:21:19 PM
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.
Of course they were.
But when you talk about concentration camps, what people think of are Nazi extermination/work camps.
But thanks for making my point for me.
Just because you can construct a definition that does not necessarily equate to Nazi death camps, doesn't mean that the connection is not immediately made anyway, and turning around and claiming "Oh, but that wasn't the meaning of the term *I* meant..." doesn't change the fact that the term has a very specific and understood meaning and context to it.
Quote
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).
But the reality is that it has been conflated with Nazi death camps, so using it to refer to something else while pretending you aren't trying to imply a connection is a cheap rhetorical trick, just like saying that the US was in Vietnam was an "imperial" war and then turning around and saing "Oh, I don't mean imperial in the sense that the US was trying to create an Empire..." is a cheap rhetorical trick as well.
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 03:23:25 PM
But the reality is that it has been conflated with Nazi death camps, so using it to refer to something else while pretending you aren't trying to imply a connection is a cheap rhetorical trick, just like saying that the US was in Vietnam was an "imperial" war and then turning around and saing "Oh, I don't mean imperial in the sense that the US was trying to create an Empire..." is a cheap rhetorical trick as well.
Actually I think you have just made the case for people wrongly objecting to the word imperialism simply because it has a negative connotation that means something else.
The English "invented" concentration camps during the Boer War. :yes:
Quote from: Viking on October 10, 2012, 03:22:12 PM
I have to protest against the misleading use of "Concentration Camp".
Of course you do. Jew-hating Europeans are like that.
QuoteAuschwitz 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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ups.com%2Fimg%2Fen%2Fwe_heart_logistics_710x200.jpg&hash=55e1806ba5419b4212e77f3c1ada16ce1fed00cf)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2012, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 03:23:25 PM
But the reality is that it has been conflated with Nazi death camps, so using it to refer to something else while pretending you aren't trying to imply a connection is a cheap rhetorical trick, just like saying that the US was in Vietnam was an "imperial" war and then turning around and saing "Oh, I don't mean imperial in the sense that the US was trying to create an Empire..." is a cheap rhetorical trick as well.
Actually I think you have just made the case for people wrongly objecting to the word imperialism simply because it has a negative connotation that means something else.
The only reason to insist on using the term is the negative connotation. It has no utility otherwise, especially in a discussion about the ethics and justification for government action.
There is no reason to use the term at all in this context - it imparts no information or relevance, except to add that negative taint. Saying an action is "imperialist" doesn't convey any actual information if you throw out the definition of "imperialist" to NOT include empire building. Instead you just end up with a definition that can be applied to anything.
Which is, of course, the entire point of using such sloppy rhetoric to begin with...
Quote from: Syt on October 10, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
The English "invented" concentration camps during the Boer War. :yes:
I doubt that - I am sure long before the Boer War government rounded up various groups and shoved them into aggregations that could be termed "concentration camps". They just invented the term to refer to those camps.
The Brits came up with the term. They get copyright.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 03:54:31 PM
The Brits came up with the term. They get copyright.
Wasn't it the activists through the British papers that coined the term, though? I don't believe Lord Douchebag Kitchener did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 03:54:31 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2012, 03:58:17 PM
Wasn't it the activists through the British papers that coined the term, though? I don't believe Lord Douchebag Kitchener did.
I'm pretty sure the authorities did.
The term itself is pretty innocuous. It's a camp where people get concentrated.
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2012, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 03:23:25 PM
But the reality is that it has been conflated with Nazi death camps, so using it to refer to something else while pretending you aren't trying to imply a connection is a cheap rhetorical trick, just like saying that the US was in Vietnam was an "imperial" war and then turning around and saing "Oh, I don't mean imperial in the sense that the US was trying to create an Empire..." is a cheap rhetorical trick as well.
Actually I think you have just made the case for people wrongly objecting to the word imperialism simply because it has a negative connotation that means something else.
The only reason to insist on using the term is the negative connotation. It has no utility otherwise, especially in a discussion about the ethics and justification for government action.
I disagree Imperialism is a good discriptive term and particularly as it relates to things like the more recent versions of it - cultural and economic imperialism.
Maybe you dont see it because you are within it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 04:05:03 PM
The term itself is pretty innocuous. It's a camp where people get concentrated.
So's a kibbutz, but I don't think there was much kibbutzing going on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2012, 04:06:09 PM
I disagree Imperialism is a good discriptive term and particularly as it relates to things like the more recent versions of it - cultural and economic imperialism.
Maybe you dont see it because you are within it.
I agree 100% that calling Vietnam an imperialist war is just as valid as the concepts of cultural and economic imperialism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 04:16:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2012, 04:06:09 PM
I disagree Imperialism is a good discriptive term and particularly as it relates to things like the more recent versions of it - cultural and economic imperialism.
Maybe you dont see it because you are within it.
I agree 100% that calling Vietnam an imperialist war is just as valid as the concepts of cultural and economic imperialism.
:D
Spoken as a true Imperialist. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
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.
That's pretty funny. I missed that one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 04:16:25 PMI agree 100% that calling Vietnam an imperialist war is just as valid as the concepts of cultural and economic imperialism.
:lol:
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?
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 12:09:15 PM
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 :lol:
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote
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.
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 06:38:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 04:16:25 PMI agree 100% that calling Vietnam an imperialist war is just as valid as the concepts of cultural and economic imperialism.
:lol:
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?
As an aside, the Cao Dai are pretty interesting. Apparently they consider Victor Hugo a saint :)
QuoteAlthough 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
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 07:08:58 PM
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.
QuoteAs 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.
Looking into the Hao Hoa a bit:
QuoteWhen America began pushing for Ngô Đình Diệm to run South Vietnam, the most powerful groups to concern the Americans were the Cao Đà i, 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 )
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 07:14:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 07:08:58 PM
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.
QuoteAs 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 07:16:48 PMWhat 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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 07:06:35 PM
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.
QuoteAre 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 07:19:13 PM
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.
Didn't Ho already declare a state before that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 07:19:13 PMMy 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."
QuoteYou 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)?
What's your definition of subject state Yi?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 07:23:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 07:23:10 PM
Didn't Ho already declare a state before that?
Bros before Ho's.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 07:27:32 PM
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)?
Why do we need to call it anything at all?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 07:27:42 PM
What's your definition of subject state Yi?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 07:23:10 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 07:27:32 PM
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)?
realpolitik?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 07:27:32 PM
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)?
Why do we need to call it anything at all?
Because we *must* use a single controversial word to describe it!
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 07:27:42 PM
What's your definition of subject state Yi?
A tentative definition is a state that faces the possibility of military punishment for going against the wishes of the overlord.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 07:27:32 PM
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)?
Why do we need to call it anything at all?
Same reason we give anything a specific word, to distinguish it from similar object or phenomena, in this case imperialism.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2012, 02:30:37 PM
@ Malthus, do you think there is such a thing as economic imperialism without physical occupation?
Quote
I suppose so. Though this has nothing to do with Vietnam.
Quote@ 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.
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 ...
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.
I think the discussion of the deficiencies in South Vietnam and the US relationship with it misses a major point. South Vietnam was being invaded by North Vietnam which was an extremely murderous and oppressive state. I think defending a people from a state that put something like a million people in forced labor camps and killed hundreds of thousands of people is a worthy goal. Perhaps doing this is "Imperialism", in the mind of Europeans. I don't know. If it is, then I suppose Imperialism is not such a bad thing.
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2012, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2012, 02:30:37 PM
@ Malthus, do you think there is such a thing as economic imperialism without physical occupation?
I suppose so. Though this has nothing to do with Vietnam.
Quote@ 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.
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 California, we ended up with many more fabulous donut shops.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 09:10:58 PM
In California, we ended up with many more fabulous donut shops.
Imperialism for donuts? That's the sort of imperialism that would appeal to Canadians ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2012, 09:17:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 09:10:58 PM
In California, we ended up with many more fabulous donut shops.
Imperialism for donuts? That's the sort of imperialism that would appeal to Canadians ... :hmm:
No blood for Timbits! California's are all locally owned and operated. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 07:43:06 PMWhy 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.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 08:06:47 PMMy question was what you'd call it, and whether you thought it worthwhile to distinguishing it from using influence that does not involve military
Because we *must* use a single controversial word to describe it!
Quit whining. It's unbecoming.
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2012, 08:47:47 PM
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.
QuoteWait, 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.
QuoteYeah, 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.
Quoterealpolitik?
I'd say detente, and bailing on the South Vietnamese because of that was closer to realpolitik.
QuoteBecause 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 :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 09:59:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 09:59:16 PM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 10:32:10 PM
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.
So they were doing better then they are now?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 10:44:29 PM
So they were doing better then are now?
It seems Portugal requires a world empire to balance its budget.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 09:52:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 07:43:06 PMWhy 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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 04:00:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 03:54:31 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 09:21:38 PM
No blood for Timbits! California's are all locally owned and operated. :)
They don't have Krispy Kreme? :o
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2012, 10:56:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2012, 09:52:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2012, 07:43:06 PMWhy 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 09:59:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:00:03 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2012, 10:39:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:00:03 AM
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".
Interesting that wanting to protect the world = imperialism.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:00:03 AM
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"
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2012, 10:39:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:00:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2012, 05:04:24 AMI 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.
I don't think anyone is trying to do so in this thread, and while I don't doubt some people use the term "imperialistic" to mean "evil" or "unjust" that doesn't make the term useless IMO. Any term can be turned into a simplistic epitaph if it's spit out with enough venom, but that does not rob it of meaning, nor negate the underlying reality that the term describes.
The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence. These conflicts were characterized by heavy involvement in the domestic affairs of client states, up to and including removing uncooperative governments and direct military intervention; but they also included arming and training insurgent groups as well as funding, training, and nurturing local factions to serve as tools to advance the interest of the great power. Furthermore, these conflicts were usually experienced by the local populations as a direct continuation of immediately preceding colonial interference.
If you don't want to call those wars and that involvement imperialistic that's fine by me, but they're significantly different from wars fought in response to attacks on sovereign territory (WWII in the case of the US and I'd argue the current war in Afghanistan), from wars fought to liberate a conquered population that actually wants to be liberated (WWII again and the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait), and from wars and actions fought to stop genocide and mass killing followed by withdrawal (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even the Libyan intervention). Pretending that, say, the Vietnam War was similar to World War II in terms of justifications and underlying dynamics is just daft.
I've sketched out several times in this thread what I consider the characteristics of an imperialist war. I think any given conflict can be characterized as more or less imperialist in nature depending on how many of those characteristics apply; and it's not something I'm applying only to US wars - most Soviet actions had a lot of imperialist characteristics and China and Iran have already been mentioned. I'm pretty sure various actions by South Africa, Britain and France and even Vietnam itself in regards to Cambodia will check off a number of those characteristics as well.
Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.
Like I said, I'm happy to adopt another term instead of imperialistic if anyone has one to propose. If someone thinks - and evidently plenty of people in this thread do - that the whole grouping of imperialistic (or whatever you want to call them) wars is wrongheaded I'm very happy to hear an argument that actually addresses the substance of what Sheilbh and I have argued. But the usual weak ass languish sniping is just that - weak ass.
If we disputed that there was such a thing as economic imperialism, then would you ask if we believed in cultural imperialism, so you could conclude that THAT was what the "US Empire" is all about?
Then if that wasn't accepted, would you ask if anyone believed in "Language Imperialism" - after all, with English being the most commonly spoken second language on the planet, surely the US is guilty of imposing that form of the imperialist plot on the planet.
Why so much work to come up with *some* definition/flavor of "imperialism" that can stick to the US, all for the purpose of being able to bitch about American Imperialism? Why not just bitch about American actions directly?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.
If that's about what I said - I wasn't trying to say that. I was suggesting that given what had been defined as imperialism so far, I didn't see how you could claim the Vietnam War but not the world wars. Primarily because in both you had the US giving assistance to weak/weakened states to prevent them from being dominated by countries/polities with interests at cross-purpose with those of the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2012, 11:57:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2012, 10:39:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:00:03 AM
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.
No, you are mistaken. I did reply (see reply #337), you must have missed it.
Certainly there can be "such a thing as economic imperialism". There can also be such a thing as "cultural imperialism". Neither of these concepts, however, have very much to do with the American war in Vietnam.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2012, 05:04:24 AMI 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.
I don't think anyone is trying to do so in this thread, and while I don't doubt some people use the term "imperialistic" to mean "evil" or "unjust" that doesn't make the term useless IMO. Any term can be turned into a simplistic epitaph if it's spit out with enough venom, but that does not rob it of meaning, nor negate the underlying reality that the term describes.
The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence. These conflicts were characterized by heavy involvement in the domestic affairs of client states, up to and including removing uncooperative governments and direct military intervention; but they also included arming and training insurgent groups as well as funding, training, and nurturing local factions to serve as tools to advance the interest of the great power. Furthermore, these conflicts were usually experienced by the local populations as a direct continuation of immediately preceding colonial interference.
If you don't want to call those wars and that involvement imperialistic that's fine by me, but they're significantly different from wars fought in response to attacks on sovereign territory (WWII in the case of the US and I'd argue the current war in Afghanistan), from wars fought to liberate a conquered population that actually wants to be liberated (WWII again and the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait), and from wars and actions fought to stop genocide and mass killing followed by withdrawal (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even the Libyan intervention). Pretending that, say, the Vietnam War was similar to World War II in terms of justifications and underlying dynamics is just daft.
I've sketched out several times in this thread what I consider the characteristics of an imperialist war. I think any given conflict can be characterized as more or less imperialist in nature depending on how many of those characteristics apply; and it's not something I'm applying only to US wars - most Soviet actions had a lot of imperialist characteristics and China and Iran have already been mentioned. I'm pretty sure various actions by South Africa, Britain and France and even Vietnam itself in regards to Cambodia will check off a number of those characteristics as well.
Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.
Like I said, I'm happy to adopt another term instead of imperialistic if anyone has one to propose. If someone thinks - and evidently plenty of people in this thread do - that the whole grouping of imperialistic (or whatever you want to call them) wars is wrongheaded I'm very happy to hear an argument that actually addresses the substance of what Sheilbh and I have argued. But the usual weak ass languish sniping is just that - weak ass.
What you seem to be in denial about is that the terms "imperialism" and "imperialistic" have largely become epitaphs, which makes them problematic when you attempt to use them descriptively--unless you in fact intent to use them as epitaphs.
Beyond the negative connotations, however, is the fact that clearly most posters here don't agree with your definition of the terms. Most of us seem to be saying that an imperialistic war would be one fought to acquire territory outside of areas generally considered to be part of the nation, or to set up subject states--and we reject the notion that that's what the US was doing in Vietnam.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.
Like I said, I'm happy to adopt another term instead of imperialistic if anyone has one to propose. If someone thinks - and evidently plenty of people in this thread do - that the whole grouping of imperialistic (or whatever you want to call them) wars is wrongheaded I'm very happy to hear an argument that actually addresses the substance of what Sheilbh and I have argued. But the usual weak ass languish sniping is just that - weak ass.
You are missing the substance of the criticism against your position. No-one is objecting to criticizing US involvement in Vietnam. What people are objecting to, and rightly, is decribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with creating an empire as "imperialistic".
Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?
The answer, as we all know, is that it fits within mid 20th century rhetoric: imperialist = morally suspect.
Jacob, the trouble is that you are applying a label as an explanation for an extraordinarily complex set of events, imputing a single motive for a war which had many authors each of which had motivations for commencing/contunuing/escalating that war which themselves were mixed and changed over time.
It's simply ahistorical to apply a label like imperialistic. It's not useful shorthand in a way that it might possibly be for the Scramble for Africa (even there it is simplistic). It does not illuminate, it does not explain.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:14:18 PM
You are missing the substance of the criticism against your position. No-one is objecting to criticizing US involvement in Vietnam. What people are objecting to, and rightly, is decribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with creating an empire as "imperialistic".
Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?
The answer, as we all know, is that it fits within mid 20th century rhetoric: imperialist = morally suspect.
Well, like I've said numerous times already - propose another term and I'm happy to use it.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
while I don't doubt some people use the term "imperialistic" to mean "evil" or "unjust"
Nice that you don't doubt that. Because 99% of the time, that's how it's used. Blame your fellow lefties for poisoning the term.
Why do we have to have a single term? If we do, I propose "the Vietnam War"
The only point to the use of any label is to use it as short hand for a more descriptive definition of the term in question.
They have no utility except insofar as the people involved in the debate agree to their use in place of the less concise description of what the word means.
The term "imperialism" has definite negative connotations that imply motives that are typically consider not just when it is applied to making war. That makes a discussion about motives of nations in which one side insists on using a term that by definition suggests the very conclusion under discussion rather problematic.
When the side that demands to use the term claims that it isn't necessarily negative, but those in the discussion do not agree with their alternative definition, or that it applies...well, it makes one wonder what the point of insisting that the term be used is all about. Which goes back to its negative connotations.
Jake/Shelf: US actions in Vietnam were imperialist!
Others: No, they were not! The US was not trying to create or maintain an Empire!
Jake/Shelf: That isn't the definition I mean. I mean some other definition. That definition being: XYZ. Just ignore the common definition that the entire world uses for the word, and use this one instead. Pretend the negative connotations don't exist.
Others: I don't agree with that definition, nor do I understand the utility of that definition, and even if I did accept that definition, it would encompass other wars we all agree are NOT imperialist if it was broad enough to cover Vietnam!
Jake/Shelf: Still, I think we should use the term anyway.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:18:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:14:18 PM
You are missing the substance of the criticism against your position. No-one is objecting to criticizing US involvement in Vietnam. What people are objecting to, and rightly, is decribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with creating an empire as "imperialistic".
Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?
The answer, as we all know, is that it fits within mid 20th century rhetoric: imperialist = morally suspect.
Well, like I've said numerous times already - propose another term and I'm happy to use it.
"Containment".
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2012, 12:22:04 PM
Why do we have to have a single term? If we do, I propose "the Vietnam War"
I object to the term "War". It has too many negative connotations.
How about "The Vietnam Experiment That Really Could Have Gone Better"?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence.
Even under that definition, the Vietnam War doesn't qualify, because the US was not trying to establish or maintain a sphere of influence, it was attempting to deny the Soviet Union from establishing one.
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2012, 12:15:34 PM
Jacob, the trouble is that you are applying a label as an explanation for an extraordinarily complex set of events, imputing a single motive for a war which had many authors each of which had motivations for commencing/contunuing/escalating that war which themselves were mixed and changed over time.
It's simply ahistorical to apply a label like imperialistic. It's not useful shorthand in a way that it might possibly be for the Scramble for Africa (even there it is simplistic). It does not illuminate, it does not explain.
That is the nature of categorizing anything; you reduce complex, unique, multi-faceted individual phenomena and look for common elements that you use to get a grip on broader patterns.
But like I said, I'm happy to abandon the word imperialist if an alternative is proposed. I'm also interested in a taxonomy of conflicts that's radically different than the one that calls US and Soviet cold war proxy conflicts "imperialist" (or another word that covers the same characteristics) if someone has one to put forward; that could be an interesting discussion.
I get the objections to "imperialist" - they've repeated a number of times in this thread in a whole bunch of variations - what I'm asking for is some sort of alternative, any kind of alternative for discussing, whether it's semantics, taxonomy, or something else. Because simply saying "you can call it imperialism" with nothing else offered up is simply shutting down the conversation.
I offered one. What's wrong with "containment"?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:31:47 PM
Because simply saying "you can call it imperialism" with nothing else offered up is simply shutting down the conversation.
How so? Or at least how would that differ from the conversation that would be had if there was one term that we agreed upon. Like let's say we went with Malthus's containment. What now? :unsure:
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:18:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:14:18 PM
You are missing the substance of the criticism against your position. No-one is objecting to criticizing US involvement in Vietnam. What people are objecting to, and rightly, is decribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with creating an empire as "imperialistic".
Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?
The answer, as we all know, is that it fits within mid 20th century rhetoric: imperialist = morally suspect.
Well, like I've said numerous times already - propose another term and I'm happy to use it.
Okay. "Liberation". It's not really connected to the word "Liberation" as we normally define it, but then neither is "Imperialism", and at least "Liberation" has a positive connotation. So, will you be using this new term?
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:35:27 PM
I offered one. What's wrong with "containment"?
Hey, now. That's a loaded term in favor of the US. Need to use a more neutral one like "imperialism".
Quote from: dps on October 11, 2012, 12:10:49 PMWhat you seem to be in denial about is that the terms "imperialism" and "imperialistic" have largely become epitaphs, which makes them problematic when you attempt to use them descriptively--unless you in fact intent to use them as epitaphs.
I don't think they're simply epitaphs, I think there's a whole bunch of substance behind the term. Check out wikipedia, for a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
QuoteBeyond the negative connotations, however, is the fact that clearly most posters here don't agree with your definition of the terms. Most of us seem to be saying that an imperialistic war would be one fought to acquire territory outside of areas generally considered to be part of the nation, or to set up subject states--and we reject the notion that that's what the US was doing in Vietnam.
That's great, and we agree. I don't think the US was trying to institute the equivalent of the British Raj in Vietnam.
What would be great would be to hear some thoughts on what the US was trying to do in Vietnam, how they went about it, how the power dynamics played out, how you'd characterize those motives and actions and power dynamics, whether there was a broader recognizable pattern that could be seen in other US actions, whether some of those elements and patterns can be seen in the actions of other actors at the time or at other times.
And if you get that far, some sort of description for those patterns - whatever they may be - would be interesting as well.
Personally, I think the power dynamics and actions are vastly more interesting and significant than the motives, but I'm happy to hear you thoughts on all of them.
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2012, 12:22:04 PM
Why do we have to have a single term? If we do, I propose "the Vietnam War"
I'm not sure it works as it turns into a tautology. We're not really going to have much of a conversation or learn much from investigating to what degree the Vietnam War conforms to the definition of the Vietnam War.
... actually, I take that back. This is languish. We could probably get a rousing semantic argument going.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 12:29:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence.
Even under that definition, the Vietnam War doesn't qualify, because the US was not trying to establish or maintain a sphere of influence, it was attempting to deny the Soviet Union from establishing one.
Seems to me that South Vietnam was at the very least intended to be in the US sphere of influence.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:31:47 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2012, 12:15:34 PM
Jacob, the trouble is that you are applying a label as an explanation for an extraordinarily complex set of events, imputing a single motive for a war which had many authors each of which had motivations for commencing/contunuing/escalating that war which themselves were mixed and changed over time.
It's simply ahistorical to apply a label like imperialistic. It's not useful shorthand in a way that it might possibly be for the Scramble for Africa (even there it is simplistic). It does not illuminate, it does not explain.
That is the nature of categorizing anything; you reduce complex, unique, multi-faceted individual phenomena and look for common elements that you use to get a grip on broader patterns.
But like I said, I'm happy to abandon the word imperialist if an alternative is proposed. I'm also interested in a taxonomy of conflicts that's radically different than the one that calls US and Soviet cold war proxy conflicts "imperialist" (or another word that covers the same characteristics) if someone has one to put forward; that could be an interesting discussion.
I get the objections to "imperialist" - they've repeated a number of times in this thread in a whole bunch of variations - what I'm asking for is some sort of alternative, any kind of alternative for discussing, whether it's semantics, taxonomy, or something else. Because simply saying "you can call it imperialism" with nothing else offered up is simply shutting down the conversation.
How about "cold war proxy conflict"?
Really? The US didn't show much interest in it until the Reds did. Anyway, you want to use my term?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:45:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 12:29:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence.
Even under that definition, the Vietnam War doesn't qualify, because the US was not trying to establish or maintain a sphere of influence, it was attempting to deny the Soviet Union from establishing one.
Seems to me that South Vietnam was at the very least intended to be in the US sphere of influence.
But that was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
It's not like the US would have been mucking about in South Vietnam absent the threat of Communism in North Vietnam.
We sure as hell were not interested in setting up client states in the US "sphere of influence" in other Southeast Asian countries that were not under Communist threat, which suggests (IMO) that the driving factor was in fact Communism (misgruided as it was in hindsight), rather than some desire to expand the US sphere of influence into SE Asia in general.
The Vietnam War was nothing like Auschwitz. :(
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:35:27 PM
I offered one. What's wrong with "containment"?
Not bad.
I mean, it should probably be turned into an adjective, but that's just semantic quibbling on my part :)
More substantially, using "containmentist" (to coin a clumsy adjectiviztion) seems to shift the focus of the analysis towards the motivation of the great powers and away from the power dynamics between great powers and their clients, and away from the experience of the populations in the theatres of containment.
Still, it's more neutral sounding. Now all you need to do is to make this new term gain some traction :)
That said, I expect that should "containmentist" or something similar gain wide currency it would quickly attract a similarly negative connotation as "imperialist" because it's still pretty hard to cast the things it covers (client elites oppressing the populace, proxy wars, etc) as positive from the perspective of the people in theatre.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2012, 12:50:55 PMBut that was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Malthus has brought this up as well previously, and perhaps that's one of the fault lines in the argument. Do we prioritize intent or effect? Do we prioritize the perspective of the actor or the acted upon?
Would you be comfortable with saying the Vietnam War was not conceived as imperialist by the US, but was experienced as imperialist by the Vietnamese?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 12:45:52 PM
Seems to me that South Vietnam was at the very least intended to be in the US sphere of influence.
Let's put it this way.
The US wasn't trying to maintain a sphere of influence by intervening because it didn't have one there in the first place.
And if staying out would not have resulted in the USSR acquiring a sphere of influence, the US wouldn't have bothered.
So I don't think it is right that the US intent in getting involved was to acquire of sphere of influence.
In fact, of course, the US did acquire such influence, at least as long as South Vietnam existed, but that was a side effect of the decision to intervene rather than the motivation for it (the same holds for ROK and the Korean War).
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:08:37 PM
. Do we prioritize intent or effect? Do we prioritize the perspective of the actor or the acted upon?
I'll answer your question with a question.
Assuming your definition, is there any way for a Great Power to come to the defense of a smaller nation threatened by another Great Power without the defending Great Power thereby itself waging an imperialist war? Because the defending power, by virtue of coming to the weaker nation's defense, thereby creates reliance of the weaker nation on itself for basic security, and also creates a powerful sphere of influence in the weaker nation. Moreoever, it will be in the defending Great Power's interest to maintain and bolster that influence throughout the duration of the conflict in order to make the joint resistance more effective.
As an example: under a broad view of your definition, can't France and Britain be accused of fighting an imperialist war against Germany in 1939 in order to maintain their sphere of influence in Poland?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:03:18 PM
Now all you need to do is to make this new term gain some traction :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment ?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:03:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:35:27 PM
I offered one. What's wrong with "containment"?
Not bad.
I mean, it should probably be turned into an adjective, but that's just semantic quibbling on my part :)
More substantially, using "containmentist" (to coin a clumsy adjectiviztion) seems to shift the focus of the analysis towards the motivation of the great powers and away from the power dynamics between great powers and their clients, and away from the experience of the populations in the theatres of containment.
Still, it's more neutral sounding. Now all you need to do is to make this new term gain some traction :)
That said, I expect that should "containmentist" or something similar gain wide currency it would quickly attract a similarly negative connotation as "imperialist" because it's still pretty hard to cast the things it covers (client elites oppressing the populace, proxy wars, etc) as positive from the perspective of the people in theatre.
Containment already has widespread currency in being used to describe American anti-communist policy and interventions such as Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2012, 12:50:55 PMBut that was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
It's not like the US would have been mucking about in South Vietnam absent the threat of Communism in North Vietnam.
We sure as hell were not interested in setting up client states in the US "sphere of influence" in other Southeast Asian countries that were not under Communist threat, which suggests (IMO) that the driving factor was in fact Communism (misgruided as it was in hindsight), rather than some desire to expand the US sphere of influence into SE Asia in general.
... to respond to this post a second time...
That's part of why I find this subject so interesting.
There's no doubt in my mind that post WWII saw a new approach to international relations and power dynamics, and that the US was (and is) a very different hegemon from those that came before it. The US' ideals of liberty and democracy make a huge difference, as does its rejection of colonialism. How things turned out in West Germany, Japan, and South Korea are testaments to this difference, and I think greatly to the credit of the US. I don't feel I'm well versed enough in history to say that this is unique in history, but I don't know of anything comparable, and it's something I think is incredibly positive.
Still, I think it's interesting to examine where and how messy reality intersects with ideals and intentions. Maybe if the US had won in Vietnam, that country would have been a peer of South Korea and Japan and Taiwan today because the US' intentions were not imperialist in nature. On the other hand maybe that was simply not possible, and as more and more things were checked on the "imperialist list" the more impossible that outcome became.
Certainly, I think the US has become more leery of employing the various tools that I'd call imperialist (and which I don't think "containtmentist" or "cold war proxy war" can replace) since the Vietnam War.
Perhaps one of the tragedies of the Vietnam War was the the US used what were essentially imperialist methods in pursuit of non-imperialist goals, and that contributed to how badly the whole thing turned out?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:31:57 PM
Perhaps one of the tragedies of the Vietnam War was the the US used what were essentially imperialist methods in pursuit of non-imperialist goals, and that contributed to how badly the whole thing turned out?
Maybe. How would they have known at the time that it would be different from Taiwan and Korea? How do we know in hindsight that Korea would not have been just like Vietnam if the West had just pulled out?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:08:37 PM
. Do we prioritize intent or effect? Do we prioritize the perspective of the actor or the acted upon?
I'll answer your question with a question.
Assuming your definition, is there any way for a Great Power to come to the defense of a smaller nation threatened by another Great Power without the defending Great Power thereby itself waging an imperialist war? Because the defending power, by virtue of coming to the weaker nation's defense, thereby creates reliance of the weaker nation on itself for basic security, and also creates a powerful sphere of influence in the weaker nation. Moreoever, it will be in the defending Great Power's interest to maintain and bolster that influence throughout the duration of the conflict in order to make the joint resistance more effective.
As an example: under a broad view of your definition, can't France and Britain be accused of fighting an imperialist war against Germany in 1939 in order to maintain their sphere of influence in Poland?
Should we prioritize the view of the actor or the acted upon?
Perhaps, for the sake of argument, France and Britain entered the war for imperialistic purposes in this case, but it's my understanding that the Poles did not find the war against Germany on their behalf imperialistic.
I'd expect that even the Soviets weren't initially perceived as imperialist by the Poles, but that that perception shifted after the war.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2012, 01:39:10 PMMaybe. How would they have known at the time that it would be different from Taiwan and Korea? How do we know in hindsight that Korea would not have been just like Vietnam if the West had just pulled out?
Obviously we don't know.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:14:18 PM
Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?
Wait a minute, first you say to me that you think there is such a thing as economic imperialism then you slag me for applying an ever more attenutative meaning to imperial like economic imperialism for no good reason.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 11, 2012, 01:45:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:14:18 PM
Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?
Wait a minute, first you say to me that you think there is such a thing as economic imperialism then you slag me for applying an ever more attenutative meaning to imperial like economic imperialism for no good reason.
I'm not "slagging". I'm merely pointing out that there is no compelling reason to use the term in this context.
I agreed that "economic Imperialism" exists, but I pointed out it had very little to do with the war in Vietnam. Vietnam lacked economic justification. Neither the supporters of the war, nor its opponents, believed that it was fought to achieve economic goals.
Economic Imperialism may be a perfectly cromulent term, but it doesn't apply here.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:03:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 12:35:27 PM
I offered one. What's wrong with "containment"?
Not bad.
I mean, it should probably be turned into an adjective, but that's just semantic quibbling on my part :)
More substantially, using "containmentist" (to coin a clumsy adjectiviztion) seems to shift the focus of the analysis towards the motivation of the great powers and away from the power dynamics between great powers and their clients, and away from the experience of the populations in the theatres of containment.
Still, it's more neutral sounding. Now all you need to do is to make this new term gain some traction :)
That said, I expect that should "containmentist" or something similar gain wide currency it would quickly attract a similarly negative connotation as "imperialist" because it's still pretty hard to cast the things it covers (client elites oppressing the populace, proxy wars, etc) as positive from the perspective of the people in theatre.
Well, as others pointed out, it isn't a new term. "Containment" was widely used by US policymakers themselves at the time to describe what they were up to. Thus, it is a term that can be used to describe various US wars - such as Korea and Vietnam.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2012, 12:50:55 PMBut that was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
It's not like the US would have been mucking about in South Vietnam absent the threat of Communism in North Vietnam.
We sure as hell were not interested in setting up client states in the US "sphere of influence" in other Southeast Asian countries that were not under Communist threat, which suggests (IMO) that the driving factor was in fact Communism (misgruided as it was in hindsight), rather than some desire to expand the US sphere of influence into SE Asia in general.
... to respond to this post a second time...
That's part of why I find this subject so interesting.
There's no doubt in my mind that post WWII saw a new approach to international relations and power dynamics, and that the US was (and is) a very different hegemon from those that came before it. The US' ideals of liberty and democracy make a huge difference, as does its rejection of colonialism. How things turned out in West Germany, Japan, and South Korea are testaments to this difference, and I think greatly to the credit of the US. I don't feel I'm well versed enough in history to say that this is unique in history, but I don't know of anything comparable, and it's something I think is incredibly positive.
Still, I think it's interesting to examine where and how messy reality intersects with ideals and intentions. Maybe if the US had won in Vietnam, that country would have been a peer of South Korea and Japan and Taiwan today because the US' intentions were not imperialist in nature. On the other hand maybe that was simply not possible, and as more and more things were checked on the "imperialist list" the more impossible that outcome became.
Certainly, I think the US has become more leery of employing the various tools that I'd call imperialist (and which I don't think "containtmentist" or "cold war proxy war" can replace) since the Vietnam War.
Perhaps one of the tragedies of the Vietnam War was the the US used what were essentially imperialist methods in pursuit of non-imperialist goals, and that contributed to how badly the whole thing turned out?
I would love to respond, but in total sincerity, I have no interest in a debate about whether or not the US intervention in Vietnam was more or less "Imperialist" than its intervention in, say, Korea.
It is an argument that to even engage in pre-supposes (to some degree) it's conclusion.
There was not "imperialist" in any meaningful sense of the word in the US intervention in Vietnam, Korea, Greece, etc., etc., etc. They are all much better catergorized as cold war proxy conflicts, not "wars of imperium".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 01:12:50 PM
Let's put it this way.
The US wasn't trying to maintain a sphere of influence by intervening because it didn't have one there in the first place.
And if staying out would not have resulted in the USSR acquiring a sphere of influence, the US wouldn't have bothered.
So I don't think it is right that the US intent in getting involved was to acquire of sphere of influence.
In fact, of course, the US did acquire such influence, at least as long as South Vietnam existed, but that was a side effect of the decision to intervene rather than the motivation for it (the same holds for ROK and the Korean War).
Yeah, that's fair enough. This seems to come back to increasingly imperialist methods being used in pursuit of non-imperialist aims.
Perhaps the case of Korea (I'm not familiar enough to say, but I'll take your word) is evidence that imperialist methods in pursuit of non-imperialist aims are defensible.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:55:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 01:12:50 PM
Let's put it this way.
The US wasn't trying to maintain a sphere of influence by intervening because it didn't have one there in the first place.
And if staying out would not have resulted in the USSR acquiring a sphere of influence, the US wouldn't have bothered.
So I don't think it is right that the US intent in getting involved was to acquire of sphere of influence.
In fact, of course, the US did acquire such influence, at least as long as South Vietnam existed, but that was a side effect of the decision to intervene rather than the motivation for it (the same holds for ROK and the Korean War).
Yeah, that's fair enough. This seems to come back to increasingly imperialist methods being used in pursuit of non-imperialist aims.
Perhaps the case of Korea (I'm not familiar enough to say, but I'll take your word) is evidence that imperialist methods in pursuit of non-imperialist aims are defensible.
I dunno. What are "imperialist methods"?
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:55:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 01:12:50 PM
Let's put it this way.
The US wasn't trying to maintain a sphere of influence by intervening because it didn't have one there in the first place.
And if staying out would not have resulted in the USSR acquiring a sphere of influence, the US wouldn't have bothered.
So I don't think it is right that the US intent in getting involved was to acquire of sphere of influence.
In fact, of course, the US did acquire such influence, at least as long as South Vietnam existed, but that was a side effect of the decision to intervene rather than the motivation for it (the same holds for ROK and the Korean War).
Yeah, that's fair enough. This seems to come back to increasingly imperialist methods being used in pursuit of non-imperialist aims.
Perhaps the case of Korea (I'm not familiar enough to say, but I'll take your word) is evidence that imperialist methods in pursuit of non-imperialist aims are defensible.
I dunno. What are "imperialist methods"?
:frusty:
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 01:55:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 01:12:50 PM
Let's put it this way.
The US wasn't trying to maintain a sphere of influence by intervening because it didn't have one there in the first place.
And if staying out would not have resulted in the USSR acquiring a sphere of influence, the US wouldn't have bothered.
So I don't think it is right that the US intent in getting involved was to acquire of sphere of influence.
In fact, of course, the US did acquire such influence, at least as long as South Vietnam existed, but that was a side effect of the decision to intervene rather than the motivation for it (the same holds for ROK and the Korean War).
Yeah, that's fair enough. This seems to come back to increasingly imperialist methods being used in pursuit of non-imperialist aims.
Perhaps the case of Korea (I'm not familiar enough to say, but I'll take your word) is evidence that imperialist methods in pursuit of non-imperialist aims are defensible.
I dunno. What are "imperialist methods"?
Methods I do not approve of.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2012, 01:55:14 PMI would love to respond, but in total sincerity, I have no interest in a debate about whether or not the US intervention in Vietnam was more or less "Imperialist" than its intervention in, say, Korea.
Okay, no worries :hug:
QuoteThere was not "imperialist" in any meaningful sense of the word in the US intervention in Vietnam, Korea, Greece, etc., etc., etc. They are all much better catergorized as cold war proxy conflicts, not "wars of imperium".
I'm happy with the term "cold war proxy conflict".
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 02:00:35 PMJust asking ... :(
Here you go:
QuoteYou 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.
Oh, my. You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate. :bleeding:
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 03:07:15 PM
Oh, my. You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate. :bleeding:
Why do you have to resort to personal attacks?
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2012, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 03:07:15 PM
Oh, my. You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate. :bleeding:
Why do you have to resort to personal attacks?
On the contrary, this is a very impersonal attack. I'm attacking the whole lot of you as a group.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 03:07:15 PM
Oh, my. You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate. :bleeding:
This sentence confuses me since I do not debate grumbler.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 03:07:15 PM
Oh, my. You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate. :bleeding:
Actually, I think it's been one of our better recent discussions.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 03:07:15 PM
Oh, my. You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate. :bleeding:
Really I am rather enjoying watching this one. The nature of Imperialism and Empires in the 21st century is something that interests me. Surely nobody today would build the sort of old School Empire we have had for centuries. But perhaps with international institutions and mass communications and so forth you do not have to. You can get the benefits without the burden of maintenance. But really that cannot really be called an Empire so perhaps it is something else entirely. I see 'heremony' and the like thrown around sometimes.
Quote from: dps on October 11, 2012, 03:51:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 03:07:15 PM
Oh, my. You'd think this was a Viking/grumbler debate. :bleeding:
Actually, I think it's been one of our better recent discussions.
And I started it. :)