How to Overthrow the US Government. By Marxist.org. 1980

[Debater Slayer]

Foreign involvement includes the USSR and China.

Of course. Both were power-hungry, murderous states too

I agree such wars are generally folly though and unlikely to have a happy ending.

What would you have done if faced with the situation that a “free” election would be rigged in the North, and the winner would likely kill hundreds of thousands of people?

(They killed tens of thousands in the North and this was where they had least opposition)

I don't know what I would have done because such a decision requires extensive intel on the situation as well as thorough consideration of all possible options. However, I do know that I almost surely wouldn't have backed a coup and deliberately fostered disruption in South Vietnam just because its leader's plans conflicted with mine, a foreign leader. That's not what someone does if their intention is to save lives and advance peace.

 

[Augustus]

Of course. Both were power-hungry, murderous states too



I don't know what I would have done because such a decision requires extensive intel on the situation as well as thorough consideration of all possible options. However, I do know that I almost surely wouldn't have backed a coup and deliberately fostered disruption in South Vietnam just because its leader's plans conflicted with mine, a foreign leader. That's not what someone does if their intention is to save lives and advance peace.

The leader in the South was the French aligned former emperor, and he was replaced in a rigged election. He wasn’t pro-Communist.

There would have been a civil war with the Communists regardless, and they were already being supported by the Communist regimes.

So, like with Ukraine today, the shortest road to peace and saving lives (at least until the executions start) was hoping for the capitulation of the weaker side. Or do you give the weaker side the means to protect themselves?

Both sides backed one faction in a civil war. America didn’t create the war.

 

[Augustus]

In any case, we agreed to divide up Vietnam because we saw how dividing up Korea was such a brilliant idea.

I’d say the South is very happy that decision if the alternative was what has befallen the North.

 

[Stevicus]

I’d say the South is very happy that decision if the alternative was what has befallen the North.

An even better alternative would have been to let these countries have self-determination and not use them as pawns in someone else's game.

 

[Augustus]

An even better alternative would have been to let these countries have self-determination and not use them as pawns in someone else's game.

In an ideal world, yes, you can leave them to fight it out among themselves, but in reality that would have meant leaving them to be dominated by the Chinese or Soviets.

Intervention worked out very well for the South Koreans and not so well for the South Vietnamese.

You won’t get many South Koreans wishing America had kept out of it though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would have probably had a more favorable opinion of American involvement in Vietnam if American forces hadn't bombed villages, committed war crimes, and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese in their own right. They merely added to the death toll instead of reducing or halting it, and I think the involvement was more motivated by geopolitics than humanitarian or ethical concerns.

The US has no problem doing business with oppressive regimes when its interests dictate that, so going to war under the banner of resisting an oppressive regime was murky from the get-go. I agree there were no good guys, but I also think American intervention was a grave crime that should have imparted enough historical wisdom to the US to avoid making similar mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In my opinion, that there were no good guys doesn't mean that foreign involvement didn't make things even worse.

Edit: This is one of the reasons I think the US made things much worse and intervened primarily to further its own interests:

The Diem coup | Miller Center

Essentially, the entire war could have been greatly mitigated or possibly even avoided if the US hadn't intentionally backed a coup and sown disruption in order to minimize the influence of parties it deemed undesirable to its interests.

Even after the war when we reneged and they kept the POWs.

 

[Augustus]

Edit: This is one of the reasons I think the US made things much worse and intervened primarily to further its own interests:

The Diem coup | Miller Center

Essentially, the entire war could have been greatly mitigated or possibly even avoided if the US hadn't intentionally backed a coup and sown disruption in order to minimize the influence of parties it deemed undesirable to its interests.

Sorry missed this edit earlier.

He was their puppet, a fanatical anti-communist who became a liability due to getting too paranoid and oppressive towards the Buddhist population thus damaging the Southern cause. It also happened a decade into the war.

I’m not sure how his survival would have been a net positive in any way or would have shortened the war significantly.

 

[Stevicus]

In an ideal world, yes, you can leave them to fight it out among themselves, but in reality that would have meant leaving them to be dominated by the Chinese or Soviets.

Yeah, well, we didn't seem to mind when Korea was dominated by the Japanese and Vietnam was dominated by the French in the many decades prior to WW2.

Intervention worked out very well for the South Koreans and not so well for the South Vietnamese.

You won’t get many South Koreans wishing America had kept out of it though.

I suppose it depends on how one looks at it. Sure, the US sent tons of aid to South Korea and built them up into a modern nation. I'm sure that's the part that they like, but not the dividing up of their country to punish them for being an unwilling province in the Japanese Empire and causing a civil war to occur.

The only reason the country was divided was because the US insisted on a Soviet declaration of war against Japan, and that's what we had to give up in return. We had no interest in helping the Koreans become free of Japanese rule, so I find it doubtful that the US government really cared all that much about the well-being or freedom of the Korean people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The leader in the South was the French aligned former emperor, and he was replaced in a rigged election. He wasn’t pro-Communist.

There would have been a civil war with the Communists regardless, and they were already being supported by the Communist regimes.

So, like with Ukraine today, the shortest road to peace and saving lives (at least until the executions start) was hoping for the capitulation of the weaker side. Or do you give the weaker side the means to protect themselves?

Both sides backed one faction in a civil war. America didn’t create the war.

I know the leader of the South wasn't communist; I was pointing out that he was ousted and allowed to be assassinated with approval from the CIA because he stopped being useful to the anti-communist agenda of the US. It had no higher moral or political ground in the war.

Whether the US created the war or not is a highly controversial question, but even if not, the best that could be said is that it made it much worse, deliberately fostered disruption, and showed more concern for its interests than for stability or peace in Vietnam.

Backing one faction with aid, whether military or otherwise, would have been far easier to justify; getting directly involved by invading crossed a red line and led to numerous war crimes.

Sorry missed this edit earlier.

He was their puppet, a fanatical anti-communist who became a liability due to getting too paranoid and oppressive towards the Buddhist population thus damaging the Southern cause. It also happened a decade into the war.

I’m not sure how his survival would have been a net positive in any way or would have shortened the war significantly.

I think the coup is just an example of what kind of motivation the US had in the war, where, as you said, it had a fanatical puppet whom it threw under the bus the moment he stopped being useful. I have no doubt that was politically convenient for the US, but it was every bit as unethical, shady, and overstepping as the intervention of the USSR and China was.

 

[Augustus]

The only reason the country was divided was because the US insisted on a Soviet declaration of war against Japan, and that's what we had to give up in return. We had no interest in helping the Koreans become free of Japanese rule, so I find it doubtful that the US government really cared all that much about the well-being or freedom of the Korean people.

If they had done nothing then the Soviets would have taken it all.

As well as being far worse for the south, it would have been far worse for the region.

What do you think they should have done?

 

[Augustus]

Whether the US created the war or not is a highly controversial question, but even if not, the best that could be said is that it made it much worse, deliberately fostered disruption, and showed more concern for its interests than for stability or peace in Vietnam.

Backing one faction with aid, whether military or otherwise, would have been far easier to justify; getting directly involved by invading crossed a red line and led to numerous war crimes.

There would have been a civil war regardless, the South Vietnamese weren’t just passive and without agency.

Living under communism wasn’t all that appealing for many (dying under communism even less so).

Military intervention in Korea worked out for the best. The main criticism of Vietnam was that they had far less chance of winning.

Who knows what would have happened if they had left it to the Communists to win more quickly.

It is worth remembering that there is a reason most of the other countries in the region supported the US involvement though.

I think the coup is just an example of what kind of motivation the US had in the war, where, as you said, it had a fanatical puppet whom it threw under the bus the moment he stopped being useful. I have no doubt that was politically convenient for the US, but it was every bit as unethical, shady, and overstepping as the intervention of the USSR and China was.

They didn’t really throw him under the bus, he became dangerously unstable and hostile towards the largest religious group.

It’s hard to make a case that it was a bad thing he got deposed.

When a tyrant gets killed in a coup because he’s become too tyrannical, what is the moral high ground? It’s not like they replaced him because he wanted to end the violence.

 

[Stevicus]

If they had done nothing then the Soviets would have taken it all.

As well as being far worse for the south, it would have been far worse for the region.

What do you think they should have done?

Sometimes, a half-done job is worse than not doing it at all. If we had not invited the Soviets to go to war with Japan, they would have had no reason to pour into Manchuria at the 11th hour. Japan was pushed to the wall and was going to surrender anyway. We could have gotten their surrender, which could have included a free and independent unified Korea.

Honestly, if the Powers That Be were really so worried about the "Red Menace" and the alleged threat of so-called "Soviet expansionism," then they should have untied the hands of Patton and MacArthur and let them go in and do their worst. They made such a big thing about how horrible the Reds were, and yet, when push came to shove, they often wavered and showed a reluctance to give full commitment to this supposed holy crusade against evil.

There was an air of contrivance and artificiality about the whole thing, causing people to wonder if it was a real, genuine threat to Americans - or just a pretext for the creation of the national security state.

 

[Augustus]

Sometimes, a half-done job is worse than not doing it at all. If we had not invited the Soviets to go to war with Japan, they would have had no reason to pour into Manchuria at the 11th hour. Japan was pushed to the wall and was going to surrender anyway. We could have gotten their surrender, which could have included a free and independent unified Korea.

It wasn’t known then that Japan was going to surrender, and more pressure on them was important without the benefit of hindsight.

Also, the Soviets would still have had plenty of reason to step into the power vacuum and pick up some nice strategic territory and warm weather ports in Asia.

There were certainly worse possible outcomes that could have emerged.

There was an air of contrivance and artificiality about the whole thing, causing people to wonder if it was a real, genuine threat to Americans - or just a pretext for the creation of the national security state.

A lot of people worldwide were very thankful for American protection.

How much of a threat to Americans is debatable, but it was certainly a threat to many others.

 

[metis]

He was also a Comintern agent who had been murdering tens (if not hundreds)of thousands of “class enemies” in the North and who hundreds of thousands of people had fled from.

I certainly wasn't defending the guy, but it begs the question how many fewer would have been killed by him if we lived up to the treaty that had been agreed upon by both sides?

How ethical would it have been to hand a country over to someone who would end future free elections, install a very repressive regime and would murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens?

How ethical was for us to break the treaty, use napalm and agent orange on villagers, and then lose over 50,000 of our own men and women?

It was a lose-lose scenario. There were no “good guys”.

That I agree with you on. But the trouble is that we still didn't learn our lesson and let ourselves get bogged down in Afghanistan as we keep on forgetting that it is their country, not ours, thus sooner or later we would have to leave.

As one line in a Peter, Paul, & Mary's song said, "When will we ever learn; when will we ever learn?".

 

[metis]

What would you have done if faced with the situation that a “free” election would be rigged in the North, and the winner would likely kill hundreds of thousands of people?

Eisenhower said later that he and his advisors believed that Ho Chi Min would likely win rather easily, especially since he was instrumental in kicking the French out and was considered a hero.

 

[Stevicus]

It wasn’t known then that Japan was going to surrender, and more pressure on them was important without the benefit of hindsight.

Also, the Soviets would still have had plenty of reason to step into the power vacuum and pick up some nice strategic territory and warm weather ports in Asia.

There were certainly worse possible outcomes that could have emerged.

Well, it's all "what if" now. The main question now is whether we can learn from our past mistakes. But if we can't agree on whether they actually were mistakes, then I guess not.

A lot of people worldwide were very thankful for American protection.

How much of a threat to Americans is debatable, but it was certainly a threat to many others.

There are large segments of the U.S. population feeling very unappreciated at the moment. So, if the world is really that thankful, perhaps they can return the favor and help us out in our hour of need.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There would have been a civil war regardless, the South Vietnamese weren’t just passive and without agency.

Living under communism wasn’t all that appealing for many (dying under communism even less so).

Military intervention in Korea worked out for the best. The main criticism of Vietnam was that they had far less chance of winning.

Who knows what would have happened if they had left it to the Communists to win more quickly.

It is worth remembering that there is a reason most of the other countries in the region supported the US involvement though.

I'm inclined to think it was probably a lose-lose situation for non-communist Vietnamese, who were caught between the rock of Soviet and Chinese dictatorship and the hard place of an American invasion and subsequent widespread loss of life as well as war crimes. I suppose we'll never find out precisely how things could have gone if the US had never invaded, but we can examine the events surrounding the invasion and within it. In my opinion, they paint quite a grim picture thereof, especially in hindsight (which is admittedly a luxury that was impossible to have at the time).

Also, I don't think support from other countries necessarily means any specific course of action was better or more justified. Many rooted for the invasion of Iraq based on the falsehood about Saddam's WMDs, and even though the war faced widespread protests, it still had significant support until it had become clear that the intel per which it was justified was false. It was too late to reverse the damage by then, though.

The same goes for Russia's invasion of Ukraine: we can see that Russian propaganda has caused a lot of people to support or justify the war even though it's simultaneously facing heavy criticism. And in Vietnam's case, the fact that a considerable number of Vietnamese supported the North over the South also seems to me an important factor to consider: should the decision of many Vietnamese have been entirely ignored just because surrounding and other foreign countries had other plans for them?

Perhaps a case could be made that all Vietnamese support for the North should have been ignored in order to protect the other Vietnamese who would be oppressed under Northern rule, but that raises the question of whether it would have been feasible for foreign powers to maintain such a tense, polarized status quo in the first place, especially over the long term.

They didn’t really throw him under the bus, he became dangerously unstable and hostile towards the largest religious group.

It’s hard to make a case that it was a bad thing he got deposed.

When a tyrant gets killed in a coup because he’s become too tyrannical, what is the moral high ground? It’s not like they replaced him because he wanted to end the violence.

I think it's impossible to assess whether the coup was good or bad without taking its aftermath into account. It happened before the land invasion by American forces, and the disruption it contributed to was part of what paved the way for that. Would more lives have been lost had the coup never occurred? Again, I don't know. Were there better ways to handle the situation than the CIA's pouring fuel on an already massive wildfire? Most likely yes.

 

[Augustus]

Eisenhower said later that he and his advisors believed that Ho Chi Min would likely win rather easily, especially since he was instrumental in kicking the French out and was considered a hero.

He probably would have done, but the election would still have been rigged in the North, and if it would have been the last free and fair election in the South too.

It goes back to the question of can you allow people to use democratic means to abolish democracy, and can a majority vote to violently eradicate a minority.

 

[Augustus]

Well, it's all "what if" now. The main question now is whether we can learn from our past mistakes. But if we can't agree on whether they actually were mistakes, then I guess not.

You have to judge decisions made with the information available at the time, rather than with 20/20 hindsight and wishful thinking.

This is the only way to learn from mistakes.

If, with hindsight, the Korean War was "worth it", but The Vietnam War was not, how should we judge the decisions made at the time?

(For me the main difference was that the military saw much less chance of success in Vietnam)

 

[Augustus]

I'm inclined to think it was probably a lose-lose situation for non-communist Vietnamese, who were caught between the rock of Soviet and Chinese dictatorship and the hard place of an American invasion and subsequent widespread loss of life as well as war crimes. I suppose we'll never find out precisely how things could have gone if the US had never invaded, but we can examine the events surrounding the invasion and within it. In my opinion, they paint quite a grim picture thereof, especially in hindsight (which is admittedly a luxury that was impossible to have at the time).

All parties contributed to the many war crimes and widespread loss of life, although US involvement certainly lengthened the war allowing for more.

How a communist/nationalist civil war would have played out without this is obviously unknowable. The Communists would almost certainly win, but how many would die in the war, how bloody the aftermath would have been in the more ideological 50s compared to the more pragmatic 70s, the extent of the refugee crisis, the potential for attempts to support the overthrow of other regional governments, etc. can't really be quantified.

I think it's impossible to assess whether the coup was good or bad without taking its aftermath into account. It happened before the land invasion by American forces, and the disruption it contributed to was part of what paved the way for that. Would more lives have been lost had the coup never occurred? Again, I don't know. Were there better ways to handle the situation than the CIA's pouring fuel on an already massive wildfire? Most likely yes.

It was an internal coup by disgruntled generals, although one that the CIA was happy enough to encourage. There was plenty of Vietnamese agency involved.

Given living under communist rule was not an option for many, a paranoid, religious fanatic from a minority religion intent on attacking the majority religion was not a great horse to back.

Not sure this cycle is sustainable while fighting a civil war, as increasing oppression, increasing resentment, increasing paranoia, etc. lead to increasing oppression...

Given you can't ask him nicely to vacate power, not sure where else it can lead other than coup or collapse.

Also, I don't think support from other countries necessarily means any specific course of action was better or more justified. Many rooted for the invasion of Iraq based on the falsehood about Saddam's WMDs, and even though the war faced widespread protests, it still had significant support until it had become clear that the intel per which it was justified was false. It was too late to reverse the damage by then, though.

The same goes for Russia's invasion of Ukraine: we can see that Russian propaganda has caused a lot of people to support or justify the war even though it's simultaneously facing heavy criticism. And in Vietnam's case, the fact that a considerable number of Vietnamese supported the North over the South also seems to me an important factor to consider: should the decision of many Vietnamese have been entirely ignored just because surrounding and other foreign countries had other plans for them?

How many supported the Communists because of their propaganda though? A farmer's/workers paradise sounds lovely, the Maoist or Stalinist reality, a lot less so.

Also, the communist parties, with support from USSR/China genuinely were a real and tangible threat to many regimes.