How is it possible that so many people around the world still see US as the baddies when it comes to the Vietnam war...

>russian flag
Should have guessed.
>no good and evil
>most civilians were caught in a crossfire
>massacring non collaborators is totally ok, it had to be done!!
Jeesus christ you could have atleast taken a look at the wiki page though i guess it's all just capitalist lies to you.

Are they chinese puppets or are they russian puppets?

Attached: vietnamwar.jpg (1192x1374, 274K)

The OP is that communist Finn spammer. It took me a few moments to realize it. He is a shame and disgrace to his grandfather who picked up a gun and fought to prevent Finland from becoming a Soviet republic.

>OP
>reading comprehension

>amerimutt reading comprehension
Seems like you fit right in mr. Nguyen

see

Attached: vietnam-ho-smiling-laughing.jpg (374x480, 40K)

What the fuck are you talking about you commie fuckwad, at no point during the war did the US attempt to take over the north, the war was very much a defensive one.

>not what the nation wanted
Well that's quite obvious but it's 10 times better than communism

Do you even know what Hanoi did after taking over the South? It wasn't pretty. Thousands of people were put in reeducation camps or deliberately placed near the Cambodian border to be attacked by the Khmer Rogue. Ethnic minorities were also expelled from the country.

>amerimutt reading comprehension
Jeesus christ can you mutts please stop embarassing yourselves

>massacring non collaborators is totally ok, it had to be done!!
Which "non-collaborators"? All the people that were ordered to be killed, had sympathies or were directly related to the pro-american government
>no good and evil
Can't argue with that, huh?
In fact, NV government was pretty much torn between "soviet" and "chinese" party.
>Thousands of people were put in reeducation camps
Common measure. I mean, who never done it? Chilie, Brazil, Cuba, Vietnam. If there are enemies, they have to be suppressed anyway, so they won't sabotage the government's politics.

COULD YOU PLEASE READ THE OPENING POST YOU DUMB MUTT

Attached: vietnam.png (1532x218, 28K)

>entering thread
>not reading op post
>"Fuck you OP!"

Attached: american scooter.png (750x523, 347K)

Actually China preferred a divided, weak Vietnam. They didn't really want it reunified under either government, and neither did Vietnam's other neighbors.

> still talking about the "good and evil" sides
There are interests and necessities, not good and evil. Sometimes savage terror avoids more deaths, like in Mongol times. Sometimes good intentions like evicting dictators turn into nightmares, like in Liberia. Sometimes democracy means genocide, like in Rwanda. If you're at war, the bad guys are those who shoot at you and the good guys are those who shoot at them.

It really does fire up my neurons when a "thing" be it ideology or power structure requires some 5-10% of the population physically liquidated. And you can make your excuses all day about them being american puppets or whatever but the simple truth is that they were deemed incompatable and were therefore destroyed with extreme brutality.

It's 2:00 AM and I'm very very sleep-deprived. I'm sorry if I can't concentrate on whatever the fuck the OP was saying.

Good and evil are not absolute concepts that much is true there are certainly fringe cases where the line is blurred but that most certainly does not mean that we can't use them to give a very precise measure on concepts or that they should be thrown out the window because they do not work in every single case. You KNOW there is good and evil, don't try to deny that with some moralistic relativism mumbo jumbo.

>It really does fire up my neurons
I understand. But that's a life, kid. Life in the 3rd world. And it's a war. It's a gift of a fate that Finland can live without killing lots of it's citisens because of some civil conflict. Well, since 1920s.

They could have chosen to ignore the risk they felt they posed and not acted against them instead. But then what's to say that they would not have eventually overthrown the government and enacted their own massacres and "white terror" against the people they saw as dangerous, such as in Indonesia and South Korea?

>Well, since 1920s.
RIP

It sure is a gift that this concept incompatable with huge portions of the population did indeed not gain sufficient power here, you should not be very surprised if i'm so fervently talking against such a inhuman filth.

No i'm sure the risk is very real but it ought to make you start questioning your beliefs when them prospering requires the extermination of a considerable amount of the population, maybe you could even call them 'evil' if you decided to be daring.

Vietnam was never in a good place to begin with.

>when them prospering requires the extermination of a considerable amount of the population
Questioning such beliefs might not lead to any great conclusions, when the only alternative you're fighting against is equally willing to exterminate the population.

>prospering requires the extermination of a considerable amount of the population
It just reqires them to be expelled from social life. This can be done is different means.

>5-10% of the population physically liquidated
Source? That'd be in the millions.

Progress has been usually forced before it has been accepted. Get power, force people to change, violently kill those who disagree. That is how humanity has worked since forever. It happened with slavery, religion, secularism, the press, education, industrialisation, etc. The modern first world where people are educated, people can debate the topics that influence their lives and where everyone's opinions are respected by default is an anomaly. Usually democracy meant not counting votes but counting corpses.

Well isn't it just wonderful then that we're not under such constraints and that we can quite objectively judge them?
I suppose so, though killing seems to have been the preferred solution oh so often, when you haven't got petty concepts like good and evil holding your hand ordering mindless slaughter is easy enough.

Interesting that after the second world war half of the world chose not to force it so brutally and surpride surprise they prospered over the godless brutes.

Attached: img948484.png (687x726, 76K)

Yep.
>To the thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole of the French Revolution is not that Marie Antoinette was killed for being a queen, but that the starved peasant of the Vendee voluntarily went out to die for the hideous cause of feudalism.

Because America pretends to represent freedom and democracy, while they supported a puppet dictator in the south and prevented free elections, since they knew that ho-chi-minh would win

>half of the world chose not to force it so brutally
Source? I'd say the number of countries that have not seen mass deaths in that time has been a tiny minority. Especially if you count by population.

...

who gives you the right to invade other countries, because you disagree with the leader chosen by the people?

I'm referring to the east-west divide, surely you know your history well enough to know what i'm talking about.

>free elections
>communism

They bombed the fuck out of north killing thousands of innocent civilians. US were evil imperialists in Vietnam war and every single American soldier who died there was an objectively good thing for world peace, like nazis dying in eastern front.

Yes, commies would have won in the elections so mutts being evil imperialists they are denied them.

I was trying to be generous and not assume that. But that even better makes the point. Hundreds of thousands were killed during the cold war for being suspected of being communists. Some of western europe got by okay, but the side that fought against communism was just as bloodthirsty when it suppressed opposition as the communist side.

Yeah i'm sure all those hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese slaughtered and millions detained for years in camps were really happy that the evil imperialists were finally gone from oppressing them

>During the Vietnam War, prisoners who had been held at the prison in the 1960s were abused and tortured. In July 1970, two U.S. Congressional representatives, Augustus Hawkins and William Anderson, visited the prison. They were accompanied by Tom Harkin (then an aide), translator Don Luce, and USAID Office of Public Safety Director Frank Walton. When the delegation arrived at the prison, they departed from the planned tour, guided by a map drawn by a former detainee. The map led to the door of a building, which was opened from the inside by a guard when he heard the people outside the door talking. Inside they found prisoners were being shackled within cramped “tiger cages”. Prisoners began crying out for water when the delegation walked in. They had sores and bruises, and some were mutilated. Harkin took photos of the scene. The photos were published in Life magazine on July 17, 1970. Recreations of tiger cages can be seen today at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. In response, Phil Crane, a Republican from Illinois, visited Côn Sơn and stated that the visit and photos were "distortions of truth." The tiger cages, he said, were "cleaner than the average Vietnamese home."

Attached: tiger-cages-con-son-7[1].jpg (5184x3456, 2.24M)

No what i'm saying is that free elections do not exist when it comes to communism since according to a communist all other systems are wrong and evil, there is no right/left, there is no choice, there is one state approved truth, think otherwise? Off to the gulaks with you.

Lol no, the new big political movements like Western liberal democracy, Soviet socialism, Arab nationalism etc have been imposed with bombs and bullets on people who were fine with their old systems. Human brutality hasn't changed since World war 2. Algeria had a horrible civil war with >100k dead because the Socialist government didn't accept the people's democratic will to be ruled by Wahhabi terrorists. Indonesia under CIA administration killed 1 million of its people just because. Cambodia murdered 20% of Cambodians, including smashing newborn babies against trees, because the guys in power hated books, money and glasses. Egypt took the fast path to modernisation by torturing and killing all Islamists and Communists in the country.
This is how progress is made. From the first agricultural societies to now. Your little first-world shell isn't the world. It is an outlier in the world.

>i'm saying that no one votes for commies ever because they are eevil and muh gulaks

whatever u say. But why did US oppose the elections?

You're retarded, do your parents know that?

US failed to influence Ho Chi Minh when we had the chance. Instead let France try to keep control of the country. So he went to communists instead. For the Vietnamese people they were fighting for nationalism and independence, they didn't really give a shit about communism itself. It was in vogue at the time and they were the ones supporting them. The south was led by a corrupt dictator and under foreign influence. The people just saw us as another foreign invader coming to control them. We completely misunderstood and royally fucked up the situation. Military ended up doing horrific shit because LBJ tied their own hand behind their back from now allowing a proper military invasion like in Korea and going into Cambodia/Laos to destroy Ho Chi Minh trail. We still did secretly but it was too limited due to said constraints. We ended up just dicking around in useless anti-guerrilla operations and fucked up shit like agent orange. Moral got so low that troops ended up massacring civilians. If we wanted to really win we would had to have gone in full force with a proper invasion from the get go like in Korea. But brass was too afraid of Chinese intervention and nuclear confrontation. Hindsight is 20/20 though. So yes, commies ended doing typical fucked up commie shit and Vietnam would probably be better today had they lost but in the context of the time it just wasn't going to happen to many mistakes were made. Later on it was revealed that the real war goal was to curb the influence of China/ stopping communism was a lesser goal and more of just a public reason. Vietnam turned out to be incredibly anti-chink so we ended up being good friends anyway. Today Vietnam is one of the most pro-American countries there is, far more than supposed allies like Germany that actually hate America on average.

>f we wanted to really win we would had to have gone in full force with a proper invasion from the get go like in Korea.
And you would have lost, just like in Korea

This. So much this.

No, what i'm saying that with communism there are no such things as free elections, communism is not compatable with democracy, whatever the people say does not matter since the official party line already fully represents the will of the people!

How did we lose in Korea? The South is still here the last I checked.

Ahahha, lost? Lost to whom? China?

We didn't lose in Korea though. South Korea remained independent. We didn't achieve total victory, but we prevented commies from taking over the entire peninsula. Vietnam would have been a harder fight than even Korea. And US government knew the public probably wasn't willing to wage a real war like that again so they did what they did. That ended up being a complete waste of time and resources like I said. By the end it was too late too late for a real invasion. Soviets had helped build up North Vietnam's defenses from an invasion. The very beginning was the only real chance we had, but they weren't willing to commit.

US troops were easily defeated by Chinese volunteers and forced back to the North-South border.

>communism isn't compatable with democracy so if people vote for commies they MUST be cheating so we must destroy the democratic will of the people

This is your brain on capitalism. I kinda understand now why bolsheviks were anti-democracy, their enemies don't respect it, why should they?

You people are so goddamn stupid, progress does not fucking require massacre, that is just your own braindead justification for what actually didn't even end up being even close to progress.

The real mistake was Kennedy's braindead decision to have Diem overthrown. Not only was he a tough character, he had legitimate credentials as a patriot during the war of independence against France. Subsequent South Vietnamese leaders were corrupt, massively incompetent, and also for the most part just paid employees of the US State Department.

Although some atrocities such as My Lai occurred, they never represented official US policy and the perpetrators were punished for their actions. There is no evidence that Hanoi ever tried any of their own soldiers for war crimes.

Yeah that was in the fifties, if you think that the situation was the same twenty years later then you're really delusional.

You do realize that we killed 800,000 Chinese in the KW for 130,000 American casualties and we effectively held them at the 38th parallel from 1951 until the end of the war.

You are acting as if "commies" were one unified power bent on to take over the world.
In reality, North Korea attacked the South on its own, without Chinese or Soviet backing. China was fine with America defending South Korea, but they would have never allowed for America to completely conquer Korea, thus Chinese volunteers fought back and forced US troops to retreat

>we effectively held them
lol. The only reason you "hold" them is because China had no ambitions to go any further. They could have driven you off the Penninsular if they wanted to.

>perpetrators were punished for their actions

ahahahahahhahahahaa yeah right, everyone's acquitted and people like Calley would serve couple of years in house arrest before being pardoned. Truly American justice had been done lmao

>turned out

vietname was anti-chink since forever, like most normal ppl, they are anti-invaders

Nobody is saying that it does, or that we should allow massakers in the future. But you are being naive or dishonest if you only point out the massakers and violence done historically bu the side you disagree with and not the side you support. Violence during the could war was done by communists and capitalists. In the present the same is true but to a lesser extent. And in the future it may be the case that neither side commited violence, if progress is made in peaceful political dialogue. Neither ideology is any more inherrently violent than the other.

>if you think that the situation was the same twenty years later then you're really delusional

China in the Korean conflict had a battle-experienced army from the civil war. This was not the case anymore by the mid-1960s. It was a completely different generation of soldiers with no experience in battle, and the PLA was in poor fighting condition with many soldiers literally starving.

The Vietnam border was also geographically remote and not as strategically sensitive as the Korean border (which was a short distance from Beijing and vital industry/hydroelectric power); there was no way China could have gotten any significant body of troops down there.

No they weren't. We massacred countless chinks, at the very end we actually were on the offensive again and pushed them back to the current border. We could have kept going but brass decided too much resources and lives were spent and opted for a treaty.
I already told you that was more of a meme the government told the public. The real reason was because we were afraid of Chinese influence spreading in the region. They ended up being anti-chink and China split from the soviets and traded with us, so the war in a Geo-political sense ended up being irrelevant. The effect it had on American society was the real damage.

You are missing the goddamn point, the basis of communism is the class struggle, what the actual realities are is irrelevant, what matters is that WE are/represent the oppressed class and that THEY are the evil oppresser class and therefore we are always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Do you see now how inherently incompatable this is with free elections? Even if the communists win the elections fair and square there will quite simply not be next elections, ever, until of course the system eventually crumbles due to it being shit but only after the massacre of millions of nonbelievers.

>They could have driven you off the Penninsular if they wanted to
How so? They didn't have the logistics to sustain a prolonged offensive.

Were talking about Americans in the 60s here. We didn't know shit about Vietnam even our leadership. Like I said cultural ignorance and misunderstanding led to a metric fuck ton of mistakes.

>"w-we could have won if we wanted. We lost on purpose"
I understand that you live in your own american propaganda bubble ,but do you have no self-awareness?

Diem's regime was just as corrupt, and also nepotistic.

China is right next door. It is much easier to deploy troops to your neighbouring country, rather than ship them to the other side of the world

>Even if the communists win the elections fair and square there will quite simply not be next elections, ever,

So communists can never ever be allowed to stand in elections and the will of the people, if it's communist, must be surpressed? Yeah no, seems to me that capitalism is just as anti-democratic as communism.

>, progress does not fucking require massacre
Not massacre, but certain degree of brutality. For examlpe, the enclosure in England was brutal, but it has created a large group of people, who would work for hire aka proletariat. And it was one of the first steps of english path to capitalism.
William Sherman's march to the sea was also brutal, but it made Southern States economically weaker and eager to surrender.

>In reality, North Korea attacked the South on its own, without Chinese or Soviet backing

This is a troll, right? Stalin fully backed and supported the North Korean invasion. The KPA was equipped with Soviet planes and tanks and trained by Soviet officers, and huge amounts of munitions and battlefield medicine were transferred to the DPRK in the months leading up to the war. The ultimate aim was to acquire a warm-water port in the event of future Japanese aggression.

Why don't you go look up a Korean war every day videos. At the very end US was back on the offensive. The furthest Chinese extent was further south than the current border. It took many lives and resources and American public was growing weary. Military though we had countered Chinese offensive.

Eat a dick.
> First state offering free and safe abortion: USSR
> First state to launch a satellite: USSR
> First state with a dog, man and woman in space: USSR
> First state with full electrification: Hoxha's Albania
> Only state able to reduce illiteracy by 40% in two years: revolutionary Nicaragua
> state that spearheaded humanity's eradication of smallpox: USSR
All of this was made possible thanks to a few technocrats in power who didn't care about what "the people want".

>It took many lives and resources and American public was growing weary
So you agree that you were unable to fight anymore?

Also, it was mainly Mao Zedong who wanted to intervene in Korea, his generals were not enthused about the idea as they didn't believe they could take on the US military and they were still consolidating control of China and trying to mop up KMT holdouts.

Stalin never backed an invasion of South Korea.
The equipement and military training for North was meant for defense

The USA were definitely bad guys in Viet Nam because they dragged the war out and lost instead of just nuking the gooks and taking over.

>The equipement and military training for North was meant for defense
Yes, all those T-34s and fighter jets were totes there to defend against the South who pretty much only had bayonets tied to sticks because Washington refused to sell them any heavy equipment.

Attached: Squidward_Design_2.jpg (512x384, 29K)

Military? No, we could have kept going. If we really wanted to we could have sent millions upon millions of troops and dropped nukes. Our fighting capacity wasn't the problem. The problem was the public saw it as an inconsequential war, and they thought it was dragging on too long and costing too much to continue. If we were really losing so badly the Chinese and Norks wouldn't have been willing to sign a ceasefire they would have kept on going. but they didn't because they were back on the defensive and being pushed back again. Just look it up.

If North Korea had the backing of Mao and Stalin, USA would have been never able to reconquer South Korea

>communist Finn spamer
>American Trotskyite studying in Spain
>Volga German
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.

>Stalin never backed an invasion of South Korea.
>The equipement and military training for North was meant for defense
Why are Germans such commie sympathizing rats? Someone take him out and shoot him.

but wars are not fought between populations, they are fought between governments. And your goverment didn't have the backing of your people, since Americans (rightfully) thought that continuing the war doesn't serve their interest. So US government lost

>b-but both sides killed people and therefore they're equally bad
If you really fall for this and aren't just meeming then i feel sorry for you.