What's new

How Vietnamese still suffer thanks to America. Documentary

Even the most obtuse of the Chinese members here know that truth, more so with the benefit of hindsight as to the disastrous communist experiment in their own country. But instead of admitting that China bears the greater blame for being the cause of the Vietnam War as we know it today, they continue to spin it as 'liberating' Viet Nam from 'US imperialism', as if they understand what is 'US imperialism' in the first place. There is no guarantee that this alternate Viet Nam would have been economically prosperous and democratic under US influence, but at least the odds of that would have been higher.

Exactly, im sure the Chinese members here as well know this, though they dont want to admit it. well its not just China thats to blame for the Vietnam war, theres also Russia/U.S.S.R which most Vietnamese members here still tend to support no matter what.
Anyway we cant blame Russia and China, since they were both protecting their interests in trying to undermine U.S influence in Asia/World . the North Vietnamese leaders should be blamed, for being fooled into believing communist propaganda and blindly following China/U.S.S.R instead of the U.S. look where that led them to.:disagree: Even now, they still seem to prefer authoritarian Russia to democratic/prosperous U.S/Japan.
 
You need to learn history more, my Nihon friend. The US would not allow SVN to attack the North nor the Lao or Cambodian can afford because of us, China, in the background. Had we not threaten the US of Korea War vII, the US back SVN would storm across the North Vietnam. However, I believe in the long term, the US made a GREAT strategy by not invading the North. Why? First, they lost the South Vietnam but they won over us, China, who at the time were having deteriorating relationship with the Soviet Union, the real US's archenemy. If the US invaded the North, for sure we will enter and that will only bring us closer to the Soviet and the US wouldn't be able to play "divide and conquer" and subsequently weaken the Soviet during Afghanistan War to the point of later collapsing. If you ask American politician, they no doubt made the right decision to abandon South Vietnam and in turn winning a geopolitical battle against the Soviet.
Then I will speculate as well...

By 1972, the bulk of US ground forces were no longer in combat. That was under the 'Vietnamization' of the war. What remained was US air power, some US Navy activities, and some US Special Forces operations. What this mean is that with US ground forces largely out of combat, as long as the US continued to support with air power, SVN would have been free to northward cross the 17th parallel. By this time, the Viet Cong have been largely decimated as an insurgency in the South. After the disaster that was the 1968 Tet Offensive, the VC could no longer field anything higher than squad level, whereas before, they could have put together a battalion equivalent force. The ARVN would have slowly making progress north on the ground. The US would have controlled the sea and the air. Any Chinese troops entry would be either destroyed or so severely damaged that by the time any Chinese unit enter the fight, they would suffer the same fate as the NVA at the Easter Offensive.
 
Exactly, im sure the Chinese members here as well know this, though they dont want to admit it. well its not just China thats to blame for the Vietnam war, theres also Russia/U.S.S.R which most Vietnamese members here still tend to support no matter what.
Anyway we cant blame Russia and China, since they were both protecting their interests in trying to undermine U.S influence in Asia/World . the North Vietnamese leaders should be blamed, for being fooled into believing communist propaganda and blindly following China/U.S.S.R instead of the U.S. look where that led them to.:disagree: Even now, they still seem to prefer authoritarian Russia to democratic/prosperous U.S/Japan.
Even in the abstract, at the academic level, we can still find and attribute first causes and/or initial conditions in chains of events. If we are to learn anything from history, we should do so. But if we take to the personal level -- as I do -- then it is even more important that I attribute blame to the Chinese and the Russians, more to the Chinese, as to who created, or helped created the initials conditions that made possible the Vietnam War.
 
Then I will speculate as well...

By 1972, the bulk of US ground forces were no longer in combat. That was under the 'Vietnamization' of the war. What remained was US air power, some US Navy activities, and some US Special Forces operations. What this mean is that with US ground forces largely out of combat, as long as the US continued to support with air power, SVN would have been free to northward cross the 17th parallel. By this time, the Viet Cong have been largely decimated as an insurgency in the South. After the disaster that was the 1968 Tet Offensive, the VC could no longer field anything higher than squad level, whereas before, they could have put together a battalion equivalent force. The ARVN would have slowly making progress north on the ground. The US would have controlled the sea and the air. Any Chinese troops entry would be either destroyed or so severely damaged that by the time any Chinese unit enter the fight, they would suffer the same fate as the NVA at the Easter Offensive.


United is better than divided, or would u rather see the situation in Vietnam become like today's North and South Korea ?
 
United is better than divided, or would u rather see the situation in Vietnam become like today's North and South Korea ?
Sadly, @gambit is that kind of person. We argued once about that. He has his reasons and belief, but it's not for unity.
 
Most Viets here love the US, it is useless to call over them.

Do you think there are different views about the U.S. from South Vietnam people and North Vietnam people?

Do not delude yourself into thinking your China is pure from foreign influences. Guess who was the most ardent in exhorting Chinese to abandon the old ways: Mao. :lol:

Four Olds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your entire leadership dress like their Western counterparts. Why not the traditional Chinese changshan ? Too dated ? Who forced them ? They cannot even bear to wear the 'Mao suit'.

What about the hilarious 'Chinese skinheads' ?

Do you really want a list of all the Western influences that we see in China today ? Of course not. YOU can see that for yourself everyday in China. So do the same for China as you said the Viets should do for Viet Nam: Feel sad that your China is slowly abandoning the 'old ways', from dress to religions, and thereby 'justifying' everything wrong the Europeans did to China.


I guess we can conclude that there is something in the Chinese mindset that gravitate the Chinese people towards dictatorships.
Does the dress matter? As long as it's convenient it's be fine. I wear business casual in my office, shorts and shirts when running. Does this have anything to do with west and east?

United is better than divided, or would u rather see the situation in Vietnam become like today's North and South Korea ?

From pure national interests point of view, separated Vietnam may be better. Think about what happened after
Vietnam was united.

Disclaimer: from pure national interests point of view. It has nothing to do with Vietnam people and Chinese people.
 
Last edited:
You are quite right there, my friend. If you think about the geography of China, being in the center ensure it gains certain benefits, while being exposed to certain threat. In ancient time, when there were no airplane or long-distance capable ships, China's only backdoor was the South, namely Indochina and South China. The North of China was a large grassland with dangerous tribes of Mongolians, the West was the second largest desert on Earth, the East was the vast sea with Japan occupied islands (it sounded bad but I know there were Japanese pirates who raided Chinese sea-side towns). So it's quite clear why it was of China interest to keep VN and other nations from overgrowing. China needs a backdoor, which opens to a backyard that it can have total influence over nations inside that area. ASEAN is that backyard, and Indochina is that backdoor, similar to South America and Mexico to the US.

If Vietnam is not a communist country, it'll be a disaster for China. U.S. would deploy a carrier very close to South China.
Remember, anti-communism is one of the main tasks of the U.S.

@somsak ,

The American withdrawal from Vietnam was not because of tactical victory of the Vietnamese, because quite frankly the Americans won most of the battles the VPA and the Viet Cong. The American people were not in favor of the war and wanted an overall withdrawal of troops, which forced a policy change. Perhaps our American military professionals here in PDF can voice out a more authoritative point of view: @gambit , @CENTCOM .

Sometimes the U.S. win all the battles and lose the war.
Entering into the war is easy, decent withdraw is hard.
 
Exactly, im sure the Chinese members here as well know this, though they dont want to admit it. well its not just China thats to blame for the Vietnam war, theres also Russia/U.S.S.R which most Vietnamese members here still tend to support no matter what.
Anyway we cant blame Russia and China, since they were both protecting their interests in trying to undermine U.S influence in Asia/World . the North Vietnamese leaders should be blamed, for being fooled into believing communist propaganda and blindly following China/U.S.S.R instead of the U.S. look where that led them to.:disagree: Even now, they still seem to prefer authoritarian Russia to democratic/prosperous U.S/Japan.
To u, Seem like US is born to be a saint, but Mr. Martin Luther King think different, times to stop lying, bro :pop:
"Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.
Pacifica Radio/KPFA/UC Berkeley Library: Other Social Activist Movements & Activities Social Activism Sound Recording Project: Martin Luther Kind, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam ," April 30, 1967, Riverside Church, New York
 
Sometimes the U.S. win all the battles and lose the war.
Entering into the war is easy, decent withdraw is hard.

A clear example of this was the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. It was a strategic failure because the premise of the conflict was to force Vietnam from Cambodia (the Khmer Rouge was aligned to Beijing, and an ally). Despite the PLA wrecking havoc in Northern provinces of Vietnam, the VPA still managed to defeat the Khmer Rouge, forcing them to the border of Thailand near the Thai surin region. Vietnam then installed a pro-Vietnam government in Cambodia that remains to this day.

In this particular example, it would be pertinent for you to agree that the United States isn't the only example of winning battles, yet losing the overall strategy.
 
A clear example of this was the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. It was a strategic failure because the premise of the conflict was to force Vietnam from Cambodia (the Khmer Rouge was aligned to Beijing, and an ally). Despite the PLA wrecking havoc in Northern provinces of Vietnam, the VPA still managed to defeat the Khmer Rouge, forcing them to the border of Thailand near the Thai surin region. Vietnam then installed a pro-Vietnam government in Cambodia that remains to this day.

In this particular example, it would be pertinent for you to agree that the United States isn't the only example of winning battles, yet losing the overall strategy.

I would rather say Cambodia government is now striking balance.
Deploying a million troops along the border doing drill everyday is good enough.
There's no need to send people in.

Military pressure can damage the economy more than a short conflict. The capital is too damn close.
 
A clear example of this was the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. It was a strategic failure because the premise of the conflict was to force Vietnam from Cambodia (the Khmer Rouge was aligned to Beijing, and an ally). Despite the PLA wrecking havoc in Northern provinces of Vietnam, the VPA still managed to defeat the Khmer Rouge, forcing them to the border of Thailand near the Thai surin region. Vietnam then installed a pro-Vietnam government in Cambodia that remains to this day.

In this particular example, it would be pertinent for you to agree that the United States isn't the only example of winning battles, yet losing the overall strategy.
Right, we should know what is our goals and try to achieve all of them. We could attack to China like what we did to their Guangdong province during China Song dynasty 1,000 year ago , but we would gain Nothing. We'd better to keep expanding to the South and West to get bigger and stronger like what we've been doing for thousand years.

Let China feel happy wt their 'spiritual victory' until we can achieve all goals (unify sub-Mekong region), then we will go back to the plan of taking back Guangdong-Guangxi :pop:
 
Right, we should know what is our goals and try to achieve all of them. We could attack to China like what we did to their Guangdong province during China Song dynasty 1,000 year ago , but we would gain Nothing. We'd better to keep expanding to the South and West to get bigger and stronger like what we've been doing for thousand years.

Let China feel happy wt their 'victory' until we can achieve all goals (unify sub-Mekong region), then we will go back to the plan of taking back Guangdong-Guangxi :pop:

I can never help but smile whenever I read your responses Mr. @NiceGuy ! An ardent nationalist, i mean, patriot, you are!

;)

I would rather say Cambodia government is now striking balance.
Deploying a million troops along the border doing drill everyday is good enough.
There's no need to send people in.

Military pressure can damage the economy more than a short conflict. The capital is too damn close.

Cambodia remains a scion of Vietnamese political and military influence. There really is nothing anyone can do about it, quite honestly. Laos and Cambodia are Vietnam's core spheres. This will remain true for the mid to long term future.
 
Back
Top Bottom