marathag
Banned
Canada has not been punished. They [Cuba]are Canada's 2nd largest export market in Central America, over a Billion CD.
Mexico is around half that amount.
They have not been punished either.
Last edited:
How did North Vietnam win the civil war (American Phase)?
Mexico is around half that amount.
They have not been punished either.
There aren’t really many reports of torture most of them were accusations with really no substantial evidence. Not to mention how Catholics support Ho’s 1946 provisional government.
Last edited:
Do you have any credible evidence to support your claim? (I mean the torture)
Last edited:
Wrong Forum. Chat is down at the bottom of the main page.
My Lai wasn't official policy, however AFAIK it was official policy to clear villages - burn the buildings, burn the food supplies in case the VC used it, force the civilians out.
IIRC, there's a quote from one soldier who took part in them - he said from his personal experience, before these clearance operations civilians might not be pro-VC, but after them they were definitely pro-VC.
Which, I think, is definitely one major reason for American loss of the conflict. Their methods of fighting the war ended up alienating substantial amounts of the civilians they were supposedly fighting to protect - I mean, if your home and your harvested food have been burned by US or ARVN soldiers (and if worse stuff happened during the clearance), then odds are that VC propaganda will look a lot more appealing...
EDIT: Hell, General Westmoreland complained that the Australian units were only searching rather than destroying villages - the Australians were aimed more at bringing villagers onto their side by being more light-handed. And...when you consider that the VC were far more afraid of the Australians than the Americans, I think it shows who had the better idea of fighting the war.
Last edited:
Are we going to pretend search and destroy missions didn’t exist and that the us literally dropped 4 times the amount of bombs dropped in ww2 in indochina? This idea that the US went in and played patty cake and acted as some UN peacekeeping core is just simply not true and straight up Revisionist history
marathag
Banned
Afraid, or easier to avoid?
IMO, the only troops anyone were afraid of, were the South Koreans
This (which the Wikipedia article took from Vietnam: A Portrait of its People at war, p. 108.)
Wikipedia said:
Think that's fairly telling.
Also, really? I thought the SK forces had a bad reputation in Vietnam.
marathag
Banned
Most of that tonnage was on 'suspected truck parks', aka near empty ground.
Had even Korean War targeting RoE had been in effect, North Vietnam would have had no cities left by 1965
marathag
Banned
I said afraid, and meant it. Terribly brutal to the South Vietnamese people, and worse to captured VC.
If they thought a village had VC sympathizers, they would use the locals for tae kwon do practice. Tigers/Blue Dragons were all utter bastards from every vet that had dealings with them.
Ah yes. That was what I was thinking of - I'd read some stuff about that. Though...Jesus, that's utterly horrific.
And nothing about the Biến cố Phật Giáo? The Buddhist majority were discriminated against, some internments in concentration camps, pagodas raided and those rounded up were imprisoned or killed/"disappeared", military crackdowns on protests, etc. The security apparatus in South Vietnam was turned against its people and used to persecute believers in the Buddhist faith in a way not so different from the North's persecutions. I find people turning this discussion into tired Cold War polemics distasteful, but don't you think this is something worth being addressed given all your crowing about people fleeing to the South to "escape religious oppression"? It wasn't much better with Diệm's Catholic fanaticism.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
That the US could have flattened the North or that B-52s were used against truck parks?
Like I said, it's not about defending the North. You've been using this thread as a soapbox for political attacks, and your claims that people were fleeing to escape religious persecution sound very hollow when the country they were fleeing to engaged in the very same practices you are so fiercely condemning, yet not a word of mention on that from you... Both North and South engaged in heinous human rights violations by any standard against their populations, I am calling out you ignoring one in order to suit your political ends. It ends up with you sounding rather silly..
As @ObsessedNuker said, it really comes off as a cheap politicizing of atrocities in the conflict in order to demonize one side and make the other side look like the moral superior. Rather than genuine interest in analyzing the role of religion in the conflict and the way it shaped policies on both sides of the DMZ, it's now just lessened to a tool one can use to rehash political struggles behind the guise of historical discussion.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
So why the whataboutism is response? Obviously you don't want to talk about what the North was doing from 1946 to 1956, but really want to talk about the South.
Why is that?
Last edited: