European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Viking]

but 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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[Razgovory]

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?

[Razgovory]

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.

[Gups]

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.

[Syt]

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.

[Darth Wagtaros]

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. 

[Josquius]

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.

[Darth Wagtaros]

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.

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

Fixed your post.

[Razgovory]

but 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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

Fixed your post.

Euros do not seem all that guilt ridin.  The Germans make a good show of it but their smugness shines through.

[Syt]

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.

[Razgovory]

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...