| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| it's full of stars wrote: |
| So America entered Vietnam to show the French how to fight a war? |
No.
| its' full of stars wrote: |
| Or the USA went to vietnam, so as to maintain good relations with the French? |
Yes. FDR and to a lesser extent H. Truman and D. Eisenhower wanted the French to leave Vietnam. They wanted a pro-West, non-Communist, independent Southeast Asia.
FDR's plan rested on a strong nationalist China to influence all East Asia as it decolonized following the war. FDR also believed the British and the French would follow America's advice. Both of those premises had completely failed by 1948-1950.
Further, the Soviets did not disarm following the war. They pushed into Eastern Europe. And they threatened France and Italy through their local parties and labor unions. They took Czechoslovakia by coup action. They detonated their own nuclear weapon. They sponsored the North Korean invasion of the South. And they cultivated a stalemate in order to bleed all of the combatants.
Further, Mao defeated the Chinese nationalists, made an alliance with Moscow, and embarked on a program that exported revolution through guerrilla warfare much like F. Castro and Che Guevara would in Latin America and the Caribbean a decade later. They were indeed fighting each other over such issues as who better understood "true Communism" by the 1960s. In any case, Mao thus brought the Cold War to the decolonizing world in all East Asia.
In America, J. McCarthy and his allies fed "the Red Scare" and pressured various presidents "to do something" about the threat. The Marshall Plan and Japanese reconstruction had by and large stabilized Western Europe and Japan by this time. But France and Italy still tottered, as did South Korea and Vietnam, and all the East Asian countries behind them as well.
The Truman and Eisenhower administrations responded to all of this by drawing a containment line in the Eastern Med, in Western Europe and at Berlin, and in East Asia, as I have outlined, above. They also abandoned the American govt's earlier calls for an independent Vietnam in favor of keeping the French happy in Paris. If we supported the non-Communist French in Southeast Asia, then they could cultivate stronger support at home and maintain themselves in power against the Communist onslaught.
This explains American entry into Southeast Asia 1950ish. We eventually discovered several factions inside Vietnamese affairs and we backed the pro-Western, non-Communists against Soviet- and Chinese-backed Ho Chi Minh and his faction. Although Ho's faction ultimately prevailed inside Vietnam, we still achieved our overall objectives in Southeast Asia, East Asia, and indeed the globe, between 1945 and 1990. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros: neither Soviet Russia nor Maoist China was backing the Philippine insurgents at the turn of the century. |
Isnt that what I said? Read: Cold War dynamic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fusionbarnone
Joined: 31 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After the second World War had ended remmants of Hitler's Waffen SS joined the French Foreign Legion. It should be noted that German militarism has always been recognized for it's unparalleled efficiency even against far greater odds. The Waffen SS troops, as members of the Legion, were so effective that the Communists eventually laid a complaint leading to the withdrawal of the Legion from the region.
In my opinion, the war in Nam wouldn't have even happened if the Legion were to have remained in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fusionbarnone: you really need to cite something that supports those claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goniff
Joined: 31 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the only "war" that the USA has ever "won" was against that mighty world power Grenada in 1981...and then only by the skin of its teeth...most overrated military power in the history of the world.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ Hopefully nobody confuses your posts for mine given your username (I just checked out all seven of them). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fusionbarnone
Joined: 31 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fusionbarnone: you really need to cite something that supports those claims. |
Sure.
Read, Gordon Liddy's biography(He's the FBI dude that wouldn't disclose his sources regarding Watergate and went to jail for his principle of confidentiality). That's where I got that info. from. You can also follow-up on German millatary tactics and their adoption in American education in "The Underground History of American Education"
Sorry, couldn't recall the page numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| goniff wrote: |
| the only "war" that the USA has ever "won" was against that mighty world power Grenada in 1981...and then only by the skin of its teeth...most overrated military power in the history of the world.... |
Our military thumped the Japanese pretty convincingly in WWII.
And we had an extremely lopsided victory over Iraq before Bush Junior decided to give the Iraqis a mulligan. We'll see how that one shakes out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
