John McCain: War Hero or North Vietnam's Go-To Collaborator?

Politics International Politics
81

[quote=“Mawvellous”]The Second World War is an entirely different case. The same tactic as comparing opponents of the Iraq war with Munich appeasement. False historical analogies.
It is absurd to try and invoke the perceived “just” nature of one war to support another.[/quote]
No it’s not. The Nazis and the Commies (and arguably some of the Islamists movenments now) were both totalitarian movements that wanted to take over the world, essentially by terrorising people into submission. They both needed to be stopped. Since their power was based on violence, stopping them implied that the US and its allies fight wars against them to try to limit how far they could spread. And in all cases stopping them necessarily implied that innocent people would die as all war does.

For what it’s worth I support war to the extent that the number of innocent people killed was minimised. The US is by no means perfect on the minimizing innocent deaths, but historically they were better than their opponents. And that makes them the good guys by default.

Actually come to think of it, the US’s tactics improved from WWII to Vietnam with respect to collateral damage. They didn’t level Vietnamese cities like they did with Dresden. And since then they’ve improved even more with smarter weapons and much more restrictive rules on collateral damage. So if you were really concerned about ‘mass murder’ you should logically be opposed to World War II and gradually more sympathetic to later conflicts as US technology improved.

Of course, you’re not really concerned with that, it’s just a rhetorical point you’ve picked up to try to make anyone who disagrees with your rants look like some kind of monster. And it’s interesting given that you seem to think that both the US and its opponents are equally bad that all of your outrage seems to be directed against the US. Any mention that the people they were fighting might not have been perfect is conveniently ignored.

I can see why the WWII comparison bothers you though. If the US hadn’t have helped it’s allies fight off totalitarianism then it’s very hard to see an free societies (i.e. the ones that allow peace movements) to exist in the long run. So the only reason a peace movement existed in the 60’s was because people ignored pacifists and fought in the 40’s.

82

[quote=“KingZog”]
For what it’s worth I support war to the extent that the number of innocent people killed was minimised. The US is by no means perfect on the minimizing innocent deaths, but historically they were better than their opponents. And that makes them the good guys by default.

Actually come to think of it, the US’s tactics improved from WWII to Vietnam with respect to collateral damage. They didn’t level Vietnamese cities like they did with Dresden. And since then they’ve improved even more with smarter weapons and much more restrictive rules on collateral damage. So if you were really concerned about ‘mass murder’ you should logically be opposed to World War II and gradually more sympathetic to later conflicts as US technology improved.

Of course, you’re not really concerned with that, it’s just a rhetorical point you’ve picked up to try to make anyone who disagrees with your rants look like some kind of monster. And it’s interesting given that you seem to think that both the US and its opponents are equally bad that all of your outrage seems to be directed against the US. Any mention that the people they were fighting might not have been perfect is conveniently ignored.

I can see why the WWII comparison bothers you though. If the US hadn’t have helped it’s allies fight off totalitarianism then it’s very hard to see an free societies (i.e. the ones that allow peace movements) to exist in the long run. So the only reason a peace movement existed in the 60’s was because people ignored pacifists and fought in the 40’s.[/quote]

When the US entered WWII, one major Axis power had just attacked a major American naval base, another had already overrun one major European ally and was directly threatening another. The US could hardly stay out of the war.
Contrast with Vietnam, where intervention was justified against an essentially nationalist movement by the discredited “domino theory.” There is no evidence of any “Commie” plot to take over the world, and no suggestion that the North Vietnamese regime was actually any sort of threat to the US or her vital interests. The war was unnecessary and avoidable.
My opposition to intervention is not at all based on the level of what you so disingenuously call “collateral damage”, rather whether that intervention could be justified. “Collateral damage” is the tragic result of the decision that was made to intervene in Vietnam. On the other hand, a very strong case can be made for intervention in WWII, however history does not always follow your idealised black-and-white, good guys vs. bad guys narrative, and this does not exonerate the US for responsibility for actions such as the Dresden bombings or the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs.

83

After Japan attacked the U.S., Germany and Italy declared war against the U.S. – and Germany immediately started sinking U.S. shipping all up and down the coasts in what their U-boot skippers nicknamed “the American shooting season”. Not really sure the U.S. had any choice about whether to enter World War II at that point.

84

Discredited by whom?

The Comintern was established in 1919, with the stated goal to:

“By all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”

Granted the Comintern was dissolved in 1943, but it had successor organizations through Soviet history that instigated and supported Communist uprisings.

The regime was not a direct threat to the US, but a fully Communist Asia would have been.

85

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]
Discredited by whom?[/quote]

The dominoes didn’t fall. Although the US lost the Vietnam war, most of South-East Asia didn’t fall to communism.

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]The Comintern was established in 1919, with the stated goal to:

“By all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”

Granted the Comintern was dissolved in 1943, but it had successor organizations through Soviet history that instigated and supported Communist uprisings. [/quote]

In fact the goal of world revolution was given up by Lenin with the “socialism in one country” doctrine. Sure the US and USSR did vie for influence in places such as Vietnam, but this was not part of a Soviet plot to take over the world.

If domino theory had been credible, and then the whole of Asia fallen to communists (hardly likely given the different political realities in other Asian countries) then this, just maybe, could have posed a threat to the US.
Then again the different national communist parties in Asia hardly got along together. After the Vietnam war they spent more time fighting each other that anything else. It surely would have been possible to contain any possible threat without resorting to military intervention.

86

The Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge movements in Laos and Cambodia ended in successful Communist revolutions after we left Vietnam and ceased providing direct support to anti-Communist forces in Indochina. But I think it can be argued that the Communists were not as successful as they might have been due to the long war. We exhausted Communist resources and widened the gulf between China and Russia in the process. Additionally, we continued to provide support to anti-Communist regimes in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan.

I disagree. There were always party and committee members with international goals. Even towards the end of the regime the USSR continued to devote substantial resources to expanding its territory and influence (e.g., Afghanistan).

There isn’t any question that a Communist Asia would have posed a threat to the US, our allies, and our interests.

True. But that would have been inevitable even if Communism had taken over. The question is whether they could have been united long enough to defeat their enemies (i.e., us). I believe that by supporting anti-Communist regimes, whether by indirect means or open military support (as with Korea and Vietnam), we prevented the Communists from gaining the inertia they would have needed to defeat us.

I disagree.

87

[quote=“Mawvellous”][quote=“Gao Bohan”]
Discredited by whom?[/quote]

The dominoes didn’t fall. Although the US lost the Vietnam war, most of South-East Asia didn’t fall to communism.[/quote]

It’s easy to say it’s discredited with hindsight. By your apparent standard for intervention, somewhere around a power attacking us and overrunning our allies i guess, I suppose our Korean intervention was also unjustified, I can’t see how it could be if Vietnam wasn’t. Who could say what would have ultimately resulted in asia if we hadn’t made the move to step in? The communists certainly showed they were willing to use violence to achieve their goals, in korea and vietnam both in particularly nasty fashion, killing minor officials, policemen, teachers, anyone connected with the government and family members as well. You could call that the “same” as us intervention i suppose but i bet you wouldn’t like to see it rolling into your hometown.

[quote=“M”][quote=“Gao Bohan”]The Comintern was established in 1919, with the stated goal to:

“By all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”

Granted the Comintern was dissolved in 1943, but it had successor organizations through Soviet history that instigated and supported Communist uprisings. [/quote]

In fact the goal of world revolution was given up by Lenin with the “socialism in one country” doctrine. Sure the US and USSR did vie for influence in places such as Vietnam, but this was not part of a Soviet plot to take over the world. [/quote]

plot to take over the world or not, they certainly showed themselves willing to support some nasty people to further their goals. so did we, but war is war and the cold war was a war. the us was reacting, not acting.

If domino theory had been credible, and then the whole of Asia fallen to communists (hardly likely given the different political realities in other Asian countries) then this, just maybe, could have posed a threat to the US.
Then again the different national communist parties in Asia hardly got along together. After the Vietnam war they spent more time fighting each other that anything else. It surely would have been possible to contain any possible threat without resorting to military intervention.[/quote]

Surely possible? Wow you seem pretty sure :slight_smile: I’d say it’s a highly debatable point.

88

So who won?

HG

89

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]So who won?

HG[/quote]
In this thread the forces of freedom :America:

In Asia the damn commies :raspberry:

90

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]In this thread the forces of freedom :America:

In Asia the damn commies :raspberry:[/quote]

I haven’t finished yet :raspberry:

The US also exhausted huge amounts of resources fighting in Vietnam. Without that expenditure, more support could have been given to regional US allies.
The Vietnam war is also often cited as a factor in the rise of the Khmer Rouge, with US carpet bombing of Cambodia leading many Khmer peasants to support them. However the North Vietnamese were never more than cool towards Democratic Kampuchea, and by 1978 they were outright hostile. Of course it was the Vietnamese who toppled the regime.
So much for the fallen dominoes being a threat to the US…these were very much national movements who relied on either China or the USSR for support, and often played one off against the other. They were not part of a global movement to take over the world, they were too busy fighting each other…

Yes of course the USSR tried to expand its influence, and devoted substantial resources to it (as did the US). This does not indicate that the USSR was planning to take over the world. The internationalism of the early Commitern was most definitely dead.

I don’t believe a Communist Asia would have been a threat to the US or its vital interests. A threat to regional interests or allies in the region? Of course.
However there is no evidence to suggest that the loss of Vietnam would have resulted in Communist regimes in other important Asian allies such as Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore or the Philippines. Asia is geographically and politically dispersed. What happens in Vietnam is unlikely to have any affect on say Taiwan.

[quote]True. But that would have been inevitable even if Communism had taken over. The question is whether they could have been united long enough to defeat their enemies (i.e., us). I believe that by supporting anti-Communist regimes, whether by indirect means or open military support (as with Korea and Vietnam), we prevented the Communists from gaining the inertia they would have needed to defeat us.
[/quote]

“Gain inertia”? An interesting one.
How do you mean "defeat the US? You mean destroy America? Impossible-they were nationalist, anti-colonial movements from poor, backward Third World countries. They were never any threat to the US, they were not even a serious threat to regional US allies, they spent most of their time fighting each other.

Why would providing assistance to Asian allies not have been sufficient? Do you really think there is a realistic possibility that all of Asia would have turned red without the Vietnam war?

91

I remember reading (possibly in William Shawcross Pulitzer nominated “Sideshow”) that before the US bombing of Cambodia, the KR numbered at best 200 members and supporters. It was only after the bombing began that their recruitment went up.

92

That’s the media conventional wisdom, and essentially media pressure and public opinion forced a pull out of US troops and and end to military aid. The Cambodian and Vietnamese militaries proceeded to lose wars against the KR & VC.

I think it’s pretty rich to oppose a war against Communism and when you win the argument and the US stops fighting (and abandons it’s allies so they literally run out of ammunition!) blame the Communist takeover on the war.

93

But King Zog, there was no need for the war in Vietnam in the first place. After the Viet Minh defeated the French, the country was divided into North and South. In the mid-1950s, there was supposed to be a UN-sponsored referendum about unification between the two. It was thought, at the time, that unification had about 80%+ support in both north and south Vietnam. It was mostly the Christian minority in the south that opposed it because it would have taken their power and privilege they had enjoyed away from them. The referendum didn’t go ahead due to US opposition (and possibly British - I can’t remember).

If the election had have been allowed to go ahead, their would have been no need for war, and the future (at the time) Laos and Cambodia wars would probably never have happened.

94

[quote=“cfimages”]But King Zog, there was no need for the war in Vietnam in the first place. After the Viet Minh defeated the French, the country was divided into North and South. In the mid-1950s, there was supposed to be a UN-sponsored referendum about unification between the two. It was thought, at the time, that unification had about 80%+ support in both north and south Vietnam. It was mostly the Christian minority in the south that opposed it because it would have taken their power and privilege they had enjoyed away from them. The referendum didn’t go ahead due to US opposition (and possibly British - I can’t remember).

If the election had have been allowed to go ahead, their would have been no need for war, and the future (at the time) Laos and Cambodia wars would probably never have happened.[/quote]
That referendum would also have led to Ho Chi Minh becoming President and a one party state. Judging by the ruthlessness of the Commies, the 20% of the population who opposed them would have been executed or shipped off to camps until they recanted.

And “80% support in both South and North” is pretty dubious when the North is one party state which presumably claims 100% support. So maybe only 60% of South Vietnam wanted to be annexed by the North and the other 40% realised that they would be shipped off for reeducation if that happened.

Even in the South it’s a bit dubious, since if you were in a Communist controlled village you didn’t really have an option to vote against a Northern takeover.

95

[quote=“KingZog”]
That referendum would also have led to Ho Chi Minh becoming President and a one party state. Judging by the ruthlessness of the Commies, the 20% of the population who opposed them would have been executed or shipped off to camps until they recanted.

And “80% support in both South and North” is pretty dubious when the North is one party state which presumably claims 100% support. So maybe only 60% of South Vietnam wanted to be annexed by the North and the other 40% realised that they would be shipped off for reeducation if that happened.

Even in the South it’s a bit dubious, since if you were in a Communist controlled village you didn’t really have an option to vote against a Northern takeover.[/quote]

So the US now intervened to stop Vietnam becoming a one party state and save the Vietnamese from themselves?
After all, they were so concerned about the Vietnamese people that they carpet bombed the place, and dropped chemical weapons for good measure. That was just the officially sanctioned stuff. But that’s okay, we were only a little too ‘caviller’, ‘collateral damage’ will happen.

And what actually did happen, millions dead, land devastated by chemical weapons, emergence of one of the most murderous regimes in history in neighbouring Cambodia. And the ‘commies’ won anyway.

Then in the 1980s the US supported UN recognition of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, despite the fact that it was a tripartite alliance containing the Khmer Rouge. What happened to the outrage about murderous ‘commies’ then?

96

Well it was self interest because they didn’t want the commies to take over, but yes that’s why they intervened. And it wasn’t an invasion, the South Vietnamese government was an ally. Now I’m going to defend every single thing the US did because much of it is simply not defensible.

But it’s dishonest to paint the democracies as the bad guys in the cold war and their communist opponents as the good guys, which seems to be your agenda here. And it’s highly disingenuous to whine about the suffering of the poor Vietnamese people caused by the US and ignore the suffering caused by the other side.

97

Yes ‘intervened’ is the correct word, I noticed my mistake in my post and edited it, but too late. My bad…

No that is not my agenda. When did I ever say the communists were ‘good guys’?

‘Whining’ about millions of deaths? :fume: Maybe I should tell you to stop ‘whining’ if you bring up people killed by the Communists.
I am not ignoring the other side. I am debating with people who seem to think that the US played a positive role in the Vietnam war, and that the intervention was justified. I am debating with people who seem to think that the US actions were some how morally apart from those of their enemies. So of course my attention is focused on the actions on the US side.
I find it strange how the US, supposedly a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, often becomes so desperate to defend its abuses it compares itself to regimes it regards as worst in the world. The only defence you have for the killing of countless civilians in Vietnam and neighbouring countries is that we are not as bad as them, they did/would do even worse things. If the greatness of America is defined by its love of freedom, shouldn’t it be setting itself higher standards?

98

KZ - the 80% support was the figure arrived at by the US / other western powers.

HCM did make an approach to the US before the war with the French. A successful (in NV terms) referendum would not necessarily have led to a communist one party state. The Viet Minh at the time were nationalist more than they were communist. Support from the west, were it to have been given, could easily have changed things - especially considering the historical hatred between the Vietnamese and the Chinese.

The hard-core Communistic ideas and policies came later than the mid-50s when all this was taking place.

99

[quote=“Mawvellous”]Whining’ about millions of deaths? :fume: Maybe I should tell you to stop ‘whining’ if you bring up people killed by the Communists.
I am not ignoring the other side. I am debating with people who seem to think that the US played a positive role in the Vietnam war, and that the intervention was justified. I am debating with people who seem to think that the US actions were some how morally apart from those of their enemies. [/quote]
I still maintain that the US was correct to intervene on the South Vietnamese side. I don’t supoort the carpet bombing on dropping pesticides contaminated with dioxin. It was wrong and it was unnecessary. Some of it was a mistake and some of it most probably was not, and that’s what I mean about some of their actions being indefensible.

But they were still the good guys by comparison to their opponents. Hell Dresden was wrong too, but it doesn’t make the US/UK the bad guys in World War II or make it a war they should not have been involved in.

And since WWII the US has become much more careful about killing innocent enemy civillians.

Well actually I’m English, so I’m not interested in being a shining beacon or any of that crap. I am insterested in stopping the world ending up dominated by totalitarianism. And the brutal fact is that in a war there are two sides and so long as you’re not the worst behaved you’re the nearest thing to a good guy.

100

That’s not true

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nhan_Van_affair

This was in 1956, the same year that the referendum was supposed to take place. Still think it was a good idea to let the referundum go ahead and let the North engulf the South?

Maybe we should let China and Taiwan both organise referundums now on whether unification should take place. Averaged over Taiwan and China I’m sure they’d get a majority, given that the result will be 100% in favour in China.