What if the United States had not given up in Vietnam?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No invason? Mmm, how about interventions such as in the Domincan Republic, the Bay of Pigs? Pretty bloody close IMO.
Well, the various Banana Wars topped out with around 2500 troops landed.
Small Beer to to 1956 and 1968. Hell, the Soviets had more than that as 'Military Experts' in North Vietnam during the War

You do know that no US Troops landed in Cuba, right?
 
What is the Win Condition?

If it is a regime in Saigon with popular support in opposition to a One-Party State operating out of Hanoi? There are a few ways but one has to A) Make changes as far back as the Eisenhower administration & B) Be willing to back the (proto-)Viet Cong over Diem
That would work as well as supporting Castro did. You'd have to believe the Viet Minh weren't Communists, and could be talked out of wanting a one Party Marxist State.
 
How many US Divisions were used in Latin America during the 20th Century, similar to what the USSR did

Stop dodging,and answer
I don't have much interest in totaling up the figures in an exercise irrelevant to the topic. I will note that the Dominican invasion eventually totaled 40,000 American soldiers and marines, more than the Hungarian intervention. Since the Soviets used 31,500 troops in suppressing the Hungarian revolution, I suppose they were more morally righteous in that instance than the Americans in the Dominican Republic. If it is interesting enough to you, you can total the figures up as you did with the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and tell us. But, please explain why the number of divisions counts matters much when comparing military interventions in spheres of influence similar to Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Well, the various Banana Wars topped out with around 2500 troops landed.
The Banana Wars ended in 1934.
You do know that no US Troops landed in Cuba, right?
Did the CIA not recruit and train Brigade 2506 along with US military, did US planes not bomb Cuba, etc.?
 
There was little effort at infiltration of Communists in Greece. The Greek Civil War was between two (or three) opposing sides, all native to Greece.
A domestic minority can impose a tyranny over the people. Moralistic idiots, who embrace the dictatorship of the Proletariat are as dangerous to liberty, as right wing generals. Those idiots seek a deeper control of the minds, and lives of the people, and also do more damage to the economy then your typical corrupt despot. Those Marxist idiots will also ally their country with other anti Imperialist powers, in the world wide struggle for the good of the Proletariat, weather they want it or not.

Saying that the Communists in Greece did get help from the Soviets, via Bulgaria. When Stalin decided to cut his losses the Communists fell apart, and many retreated to Bulgaria. Stalin could say don't look at me, it was our independent brothers in Bulgaria, not us. Stalin never thought the Communists would win the war in Greece. He correctly thought the U.S. and it's allies would never allow their communications through the Mediterranean to be threatened by Communist bases in Greece. He just wanted to impose a cost on the West for stability in Greece.
 
I don't have much interest in totaling up the figures in an exercise irrelevant to the topic. I will note that the Dominican invasion eventually totaled 40,000 American soldiers and marines, more than the Hungarian intervention. Since the Soviets used 31,500 troops in suppressing the Hungarian revolution, I suppose they were more morally righteous in that instance than the Americans in the Dominican Republic. If it is interesting enough to you, you can total the figures up as you did with the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and tell us. But, please explain why the number of divisions counts matters much when comparing military interventions in spheres of influence similar to Hungary and Czechoslovakia.


The Banana Wars ended in 1934.

Did the CIA not recruit and train Brigade 2506 along with US military, did US planes not bomb Cuba, etc.?
The problem was more American planes should have bombed Cuba, or I should say Castro's Army, and Air Force. Kennedy cut the number of A-26 sorties intended to take out Castro's T-33 jets from 32, to 8. He was trying to be just a little bit pregnant. Just after the Bay of Pigs Castro was asked why the invasion failed? In a moment of candor he said. "They didn't have any aircover."
 
Well, the various Banana Wars topped out with around 2500 troops landed.
Small Beer to to 1956 and 1968. Hell, the Soviets had more than that as 'Military Experts' in North Vietnam during the War

You do know that no US Troops landed in Cuba, right?
Yes, I am aware no US Troops landed in Cuba in 1960. However, that is besides the point. Troops which were funded by and favourable to the US did land there. If we take "hands off" to be no involvement in Latin American affairs, it fails at the first hurdle. There were US forces involved in Guatemala in 1956, in Cuba in 1960, in the Dominican Republic in 1965 and elsewhere in the region... I would suggest that is hardly, "hands off".
 
America was full of pundits which made bets on what the world was doing which they invariably got wrong. What they failed to recognise was that the Communists couldn't build a Communist State without the cooperation of the local people. The Vietnamese had just emerged from a war of national liberation which was stymied by Washington by the temporary splitting of the country into two which became semipermament. De Gaulle recognised that Vietnam would overwelming vote Communist in the prospective elections. Eisenhower refused to accept that and instructed his apparatus to fight it. He was a fool and so where the members of the CIA and the US Military (and by extension the Australian politicians and the Army).
Sure it would've been so much better for the Vietnamese People if the whole country was locked inside a Marist Police State in 1954, instead of waiting till1975.
 
That would work as well as supporting Castro did. You'd have to believe the Viet Minh weren't Communists, and could be talked out of wanting a one Party Marxist State.
Castro was an opportunist. If the US had backed him in 1960 when he came a'callin' and not declared him automatically a "Communist", he'd have happily remained a reformist capitalist. Nixon's declaration of Castro's Communism was based on naivety not reality. He declared himself a Communist only in order to please Moscow, which was aiding him.
 
Sure it would've been so much better for the Vietnamese People if the whole country was locked inside a Marist Police State in 1954, instead of waiting till1975.
I wasn't aware of the Marists being able to create a "police state" but considering Diem's loyality to the Vatican, I suppose anything is possible...

You don't think that the Vietnamese people should be allowed to decide which sort of state they want? Or do their wishes go out the window, subsumed to Washington's?
 
Sure it would've been so much better for the Vietnamese People if the whole country was locked inside a Marist Police State in 1954, instead of waiting till1975.

Because Vietnam was such a paradise under a viscous kleptocracy propped up by baby killers.

I make no excuses for the hundreds of thousands of bodies the communists generated but frankly the "heroic freedom fighters" killed way more people, to the point where yes, a hard left dictatorship was far better in comparison.
 
....!?

Genocide and rampant war crimes aren't what I'd describe as proud history.
A minor part of what actually happened in the Wild West. The US Army did have a proud history fighting the Indians from the Eastern States to the Western States. A history that had been forgotten about in the time between Iraq and the end of the 19th century.
I suppose the fact that ARVN literally disintegrated whenever the NVA approached is completely irrelevant?
Most did, a few did not. Which suggests what about the unpopularity of Communism amongst the rank and file?
 
Castro was an opportunist. If the US had backed him in 1960 when he came a'callin' and not declared him automatically a "Communist", he'd have happily remained a reformist capitalist. Nixon's declaration of Castro's Communism was based on naivety not reality. He declared himself a Communist only in order to please Moscow, which was aiding him.
The Cuban Revolution did not want conflict with the United States; it wanted cooperation on a foundation of respect for its sovereignty. The Cuban perspective is evident in Law 851, emitted by the Revolutionary Government on July 6, 1960. The Law authorized the President and the Prime Minister of Cuba to nationalize U.S. properties by means of a Joint Resolution. It established compensation for the nationalized properties through government bonds at 2% annual interest, with payment to begin in a period of no less than thirty years. The Law mandated the National Bank of Cuba to create a fund that would be fed by Cuban government deposits in an amount equal to 25% of the value of the U.S. purchase of Cuban sugar in excess of the sugar quota. The Law, therefore, proposed a mutually beneficial resolution, linking compensation for nationalized properties to the U.S.-Cuban sugar trade. By means of a higher U.S. sugar purchase and Cuban use of the additional income to finance compensation and invest in industrial development, Law 851 pointed to the transformation of core-peripheral exploitation into North-South cooperation. The Cuban proposal, however, was rendered impractical by the simultaneous reduction of U.S. purchases below the sugar quota (announced on the same day, July 6), and by its subsequent policy of regime change. Nevertheless, thirty days later, in the announcement of Joint Resolution #1, Fidel appears to remain hopeful that the U.S. government will accept the proposal of compensation through U.S. purchase above the sugar quota.

Joint Resolution #1 was announced on August 6, 1960. The Resolution declared the compulsory purchase of twenty-six U.S. companies, including twenty-one sugar companies. The Resolution explained the historical context and the necessity of the expropriation of U.S. owned sugar lands, noting that “the Sugar Companies seized the best lands of our country” in the first decades of the twentieth century, during an invasion of “insatiable and unscrupulous” foreign capitalists, who “have recuperated many times the value of what they invested;” and noting that “it is the duty of the peoples of Latin America to be inclined toward the recuperation of its national riches, taking them away from the control of the monopolies and foreign interests that impede the progress of the peoples, promote political interference, and infringe upon the sovereignty of the underdeveloped peoples of America.” In accordance with the Agrarian Reform Law of 1959, the expropriated land was used to develop state-managed agricultural enterprises; or it was distributed without charge to peasants who worked on land they did not own, each receiving a “vital minimum” of 26.85 hectares, and all encouraged to form voluntary agricultural cooperatives.


So Castro nationalized American property, but it would be compensated by paying 2% annual interest bonds that could be redeemed in 30 years. The bonds would be paid for by the Americans buying extra sugar. So from this you get that Castro believed in a free market economy, and thought the Americans were getting a good deal? Vilifying Americans role in Cuba since 1898 was another friendly act? He also nationalized all large, and medium sized land holdings, and formed Agricultural Collectives. So it was only the subsequent American hostility that forced Castro to turn to Communism, and ally with the Soviet Union? Wasn't Cuba already Communist, after the nationalizations, and collectivization's? By the way did Castro allow other political parties to organize? So when the Soviet Union started buying Cuba's sugar, how did the economy preform in this Marxist Paradis, compared to say the previous 30 years?
 
A minor part of what actually happened in the Wild West. The US Army did have a proud history fighting the Indians from the Eastern States to the Western States. A history that had been forgotten about in the time between Iraq and the end of the 19th century.

Most did, a few did not. Which suggests what about the unpopularity of Communism amongst the rank and file?
....!?

Genocide and rampant war crimes aren't what I'd describe as proud history.



I suppose the fact that ARVN literally disintegrated whenever the NVA approached is completely irrelevant?
Question. What is the only country in the world that the people who live there now didn't take it from people who lived there before?

Now don't peek, it's Iceland.

Wars against indigenes people around the world were always brutal, on both sides. Being captured by American Indians was a grim fate. Indians fought against each other with equal brutality. Just how much of the United State do you think should be controlled by native tribes today?

The ARVN defeated the NVA in 1972, without the support of American ground troops. The 1971 Laos incursion was a tough fight, the ARVN put up a good fight, even though they were out numbered, and fighting in enemy territory. They had never intended to hold that ground anyway, it was a massive spoiling attack.
 
I wasn't aware of the Marists being able to create a "police state" but considering Diem's loyality to the Vatican, I suppose anything is possible...

You don't think that the Vietnamese people should be allowed to decide which sort of state they want? Or do their wishes go out the window, subsumed to Washington's?
Well that was an embarrassing typo. What choice did the Communists every give the people in the North? 2 million refugees had to flee the North after 1954. After 1975 hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities had to flee as well. The treatment of ethnic Chinese was a major factor leading to the Chinese Vietnamese war of 1979. Being subsumed by Washington worked out pretty well for the South Koreans. Even after so many were sent to reeducation camps most of the people of the South probable thought their standard of living dropped after 1975. Did they have the choice to go back to a Bourgeoisie Capitalist State? How many political parties are there in Vietnam today? By definition the Dictatorship of the Proletariat precludes any choice.
 
The Cuban Revolution did not want conflict with the United States; it wanted cooperation on a foundation of respect for its sovereignty. The Cuban perspective is evident in Law 851, emitted by the Revolutionary Government on July 6, 1960. The Law authorized the President and the Prime Minister of Cuba to nationalize U.S. properties by means of a Joint Resolution. It established compensation for the nationalized properties through government bonds at 2% annual interest, with payment to begin in a period of no less than thirty years. The Law mandated the National Bank of Cuba to create a fund that would be fed by Cuban government deposits in an amount equal to 25% of the value of the U.S. purchase of Cuban sugar in excess of the sugar quota. The Law, therefore, proposed a mutually beneficial resolution, linking compensation for nationalized properties to the U.S.-Cuban sugar trade. By means of a higher U.S. sugar purchase and Cuban use of the additional income to finance compensation and invest in industrial development, Law 851 pointed to the transformation of core-peripheral exploitation into North-South cooperation. The Cuban proposal, however, was rendered impractical by the simultaneous reduction of U.S. purchases below the sugar quota (announced on the same day, July 6), and by its subsequent policy of regime change. Nevertheless, thirty days later, in the announcement of Joint Resolution #1, Fidel appears to remain hopeful that the U.S. government will accept the proposal of compensation through U.S. purchase above the sugar quota.

Joint Resolution #1 was announced on August 6, 1960. The Resolution declared the compulsory purchase of twenty-six U.S. companies, including twenty-one sugar companies. The Resolution explained the historical context and the necessity of the expropriation of U.S. owned sugar lands, noting that “the Sugar Companies seized the best lands of our country” in the first decades of the twentieth century, during an invasion of “insatiable and unscrupulous” foreign capitalists, who “have recuperated many times the value of what they invested;” and noting that “it is the duty of the peoples of Latin America to be inclined toward the recuperation of its national riches, taking them away from the control of the monopolies and foreign interests that impede the progress of the peoples, promote political interference, and infringe upon the sovereignty of the underdeveloped peoples of America.” In accordance with the Agrarian Reform Law of 1959, the expropriated land was used to develop state-managed agricultural enterprises; or it was distributed without charge to peasants who worked on land they did not own, each receiving a “vital minimum” of 26.85 hectares, and all encouraged to form voluntary agricultural cooperatives.


So Castro nationalized American property, but it would be compensated by paying 2% annual interest bonds that could be redeemed in 30 years. The bonds would be paid for by the Americans buying extra sugar. So from this you get that Castro believed in a free market economy, and thought the Americans were getting a good deal? Vilifying Americans role in Cuba since 1898 was another friendly act? He also nationalized all large, and medium sized land holdings, and formed Agricultural Collectives. So it was only the subsequent American hostility that forced Castro to turn to Communism, and ally with the Soviet Union? Wasn't Cuba already Communist, after the nationalizations, and collectivization's? By the way did Castro allow other political parties to organize? So when the Soviet Union started buying Cuba's sugar, how did the economy preform in this Marxist Paradis, compared to say the previous 30 years?
Cuba had been the victim of exploitation for generations. Castro was attempting to correct that. The Americans had been understating the value of their assets and so they were caught in their lie when Castro decided to base his compensation on what they had claimed the value of what he was nationalising. The Americans hated being told that their lies were well, lies.
 
Well that was an embarrassing typo. What choice did the Communists every give the people in the North? 2 million refugees had to flee the North after 1954. After 1975 hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities had to flee as well. The treatment of ethnic Chinese was a major factor leading to the Chinese Vietnamese war of 1979. Being subsumed by Washington worked out pretty well for the South Koreans. Even after so many were sent to reeducation camps most of the people of the South probable thought their standard of living dropped after 1975. Did they have the choice to go back to a Bourgeoisie Capitalist State? How many political parties are there in Vietnam today? By definition the Dictatorship of the Proletariat precludes any choice.
2 million people fled because of lies and rumour which were spread by the CIA under Edward Lansdale. Those lies and rumours didn't happen. Funny that, hey? The Vietnamese had just ejected the French in 1954. They were not interested in their country being divided permanently in two. I think the Vietnamese should have had democratic elections as were called for under the Geneva Accords and chosen which government they wanted. De Gaulle declared that they would go Communist. Eisenhower rejected that. He refused to allow a democratic choice to be made.
 
Because Vietnam was such a paradise under a viscous kleptocracy propped up by baby killers.

I make no excuses for the hundreds of thousands of bodies the communists generated but frankly the "heroic freedom fighters" killed way more people, to the point where yes, a hard left dictatorship was far better in comparison.
Consider yourself lucky you don't live in Vietnam. Over the last 20 years as they've started to turn away from Communism Vietnam's economy has been growing fast, but it still only ranks 121st in the world for per capita GDP with $3,498, less then half of Thailand's. Vietnam is a large country with many resources, and a very long coastline, it should be doing much better, but 40 years of Communism is hard to get over.

According to Human Rights Watch

Vietnam’s human rights record remains dire in all areas. The Communist Party maintains a monopoly on political power and allows no challenge to its leadership. Basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, press, association, and religion, are restricted. Rights activists and bloggers face harassment, intimidation, physical assault, and imprisonment. Farmers lose land to development projects without adequate compensation, and workers are not allowed to form independent unions. The police use torture and beatings to extract confessions. The criminal justice system lacks independence. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Vietnamese authorities continued to harass, arrest, and imprison bloggers and activists based on bogus national security charges.

Available in Tiếng Việt >>


So Vietnam remains a workers paradise, that continues to benefit from the glorious peoples victory of 1975.
 
Cuba had been the victim of exploitation for generations. Castro was attempting to correct that. The Americans had been understating the value of their assets and so they were caught in their lie when Castro decided to base his compensation on what they had claimed the value of what he was nationalising. The Americans hated being told that their lies were well, lies.
And the Cuban People have really benefitted from the economic justice Castro gave them? Today they can't keep the lights on, and food is rationed, but they have healthcare.

Read Human Rights Watch report on the state of human rights in the Workers Paradise that Castro gifted to the Cuban People.
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/cuba
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top