vietnam war

[pipetastic]

what is the political history behind the vietnam war?

[andy hughes]

Very simply, American politicians got it into their heads that Comunism was spreading, and this was a really really bad thing, so they pitched in to assist South Vietnam which was invaded by the Comunist North North Vietnamese. They got their asses royally kicked, and have singulalry failed to learn their lesson - you can't simply enfore your will on another country because you have a bigger army than theirs.

[robgebs]

The Amercian involment originally started out as Military advisors in the very early 60's. Vietnam was originally a French colony and certain groups wanted to become independent. The French fought to keep them back but failed and withdrew. The US used it's "advisors" early on but after Kennedy's assasination the US massively increased its troop numbers in an effort to repel the Communists and stop what they called the Domino effect - where if one state fell into communism then others would follow.

[Pinotage]

Vietnam was a French colony. In WWII it was invaded and occupied by the Japanese. Vietnamese forces fighting for independence under Ho Chi Minh fought the Japs with aid from America. They understood that when they kicked out the Japs they'd be a free nation. But at the end of the war the Americans withdrew support for independence and allowed the French to come back. The French even utilised the Japanese army to put down the Vietnamese.

The independence struggle continued, now with the support of the communist bloc, against the French who were finally defeated. The country was divided in two, with Ho Chi Minh taking control of the northern part. Those in the south wanting independence and the reunification of the country agitated for it and were supported by the north. The Americans, fearing a communist take over poured military aid into the south. In the end they were defeated and withdrew and the country was re-united. The US reneged on promises they made at the peace conference and attempted to ostracize the country.

An awful lot of people died, people lived through continous war for decades and it was all unecessary.

Ho Chi Minh was an admirer of the US. He wrote a Vietnamese declaration of independence based on the US one and was a US ally during WWII. If he'd been supported in his claim for independence at the end of WWII and the French had been kept out, then they'd have been no wars and the west would have gained a staunch friend in the region.

But its a bit more complicated than that, so you really need to do some research, read some books because you can't get a one line answer.

[Pinotage]

ansteyg - you've proved me wrong! I said it couldn't be summed up in one sentence, but you've done it.

Its all the fault of the French.

[thejuggler]

It was because: 1) The French were useless in a fight 2)The Viecong had too many bicycles and no recycling policy 3)The Yanks had too much money and too little sense. Nothing new there then!

[humming bird]

The USA demonstrated its now legendary anti-democracy machiavellianism in not giving the support anticipated at Dien bien Phu. The French fought in great courage, French and South Vietnamese volunteering and parachuting to virtually certain death as the battle raged. Sadly another day or so with reinforcements might have turned the tide. The USA did not reinforce, and yes politics with the Japanese and china WAS involved as previously said and the so often very young French Legionnaires and others died not only in battle but from horrors such as amoebic dysentry.

Diem was puppetted later by USA but was despotic, as he figured the USA required. The Media was effective in his assassination and the US involvement commenced in earnest. As usual since WW11 the US relied on overwhelming force, brutality and environmental destruction; it failed. Young men of my time were conscripted to fight under jurisdiction of the post-WW11 US military incomptence, inexperience, pigheadedness, obsessiveness and overkill demonstrated anywhere people resist. Iraq is one example..;three unecessary invasions led by marginally competent politicised generals operating too many fantasising troops. Uncounted deaths ..over 1.7 million. see part 2

[humming bird]

part 2 Tragically as usual truth and young men's honour and decency also became a casualty and the US is exposed now as duplicitous, brutal, ignorent, barely competent, lacking planning, lacking integrity, lacking credibility, basenatured (torture, defilement, assassination,locking people in shipping containers in the desert ..try being in one sometime.. pouring fuel into cellars and setting it alight "in case someone is down there" and so on and on). Drug abuse has become a military "necessity" and even last Iraq US jkilled allies whilst drugged officially. CIA was exporting Cocaine to USA with Norriega..the later "capture" tried to hide the fact of their collusions.USA produces the chemical and biological materials it so hypocritically and mendaciously bewails and provided to Iraq!! Trying to regain itself after Korea's losses and the straffing of refugees afer and Vietnam the USA has gone from bad to worse. Had the French been assisted as promised the world may have come through very differently. USA destroyed chances of peace in 1948 accord, in planning world domination, in Cuba, Chili, in Vietnam and in Iraq to name some. The question is "do they WANT peace?..or just their own way". As suggested, read history, but from French as well.There are some excellent US books too, not so popular in their day but are hailed now. Cheers

[JimP]

It was about the balance of power. The US wanted the USSR to accept that each could do in his own backyard what he liked but that encroaching on the other's sphere of influence was a big nono. Hence ritual protests when the Soviets sat on an E European uprising but invasions/military force and exploding cigars against Cuba and N Vietnam. The line of containment = the backyard fence was regarded as running across the middle of Vietnam.