Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:18 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:05 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:19 am
On August 20, 1968, the Soviet Union led Warsaw Pact troops in an invasion of Czechoslovakia to crack down on reformist trends in Prague. Although the Soviet Union's action successfully halted the pace of reform in Czechoslovakia, it had unintended consequences for the unity of the communist bloc.
I am incorrigibly correct.
You are exasperratingly stubborn!
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:31 am
. But there were those who were on the side of the Communists/Socialists.
" Freedom" means nothing if it does not include the right to hold political opinions contrary to the mainstream.
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:31 am
But it is the second group that I am angry with. These were the people who wanted their country to lose. They infested the universities, newspapers and Hollywood and portrayed American involvement in the war as evil or immoral.


You convey the impression that these clever, more politically astute than average commie subversives took over the leadership of the anti-war movement. I was not in the USA during those Vietnam War protest years but was here in an allied state where we had a near replica anti-War movement. Yes, even here we had known Communists involved in the anti-war movement but I can assure you that they did not win converts to their creed - they were merely tolerated by the other (non-commie) protesters as sympathetic fellow-travellers. itr would have neen the same in the USA. I was here Cassowary in a position to observe and take note - you were in no such position in Singapore where there were no such protest movement. So I deal in first hand facts while you are promoting hearsay.

Indeed, something that might surprise you happened to the Commuinist Party of Australia during the latter Vietnam War years - it imploded!

Why?

To inform you:
https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... ist%20bloc.

On August 20, 1968, the Soviet Union led Warsaw Pact troops in an invasion of Czechoslovakia to crack down on reformist trends in Prague. Although the Soviet Union's action successfully halted the pace of reform in Czechoslovakia, it had unintended consequences for the unity of the communist bloc.
This blatant armed intervention in central Europe in the midst of the Vietnam War for the purpose of replacing a popular government with one servile to the USSR looked so much like imperialist aggression by the Communist superpower that it tore the rug of moral ascendancy from under the feet of all who had previously looked to the Soviet Uniion as representing "the wave of the future". That very evening the leader of our Communist Party, when cornered by a TV news interviewer, made a public statement condemning the Soviet military intervention.

Moscow retalliated by cutting off its money subsidy to this errant Australian sister party.

The mood of the time was probably summed up by a bit of grafitti painted by someone on a railway bridgDe adjacent to Sydney's Central railway station - CZECH SO-VIET NAM. No one tried to remove that slogan for the next 20 years.

Communist party delegates from throughout the West stood up at the Comintern meeting in Russia the following year and roundly condemned the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia - much to Moscow's embarrasment. Despite the vocal stand taken by the leadership of our Communist Party many members resigned in protest - having discovered that socialism was not what they thought it was.

Now, i'll bet that you were unaware that Communists could make a principlied stand like that, did you? Well they did!

Just as I bet you were unaware that the 1968 Soviet led invasion of Czechoslovakia to replace a (still ostensively socialist) government that the leadership in Moscow disapproved of? Just as you are likely unaware that revolutionary upheaval known as the "Prague spring" that brought that government to power had ever taken place? There is so bloody much from that era that you are abyssmally ignorent about Cassowary - so spare my tremper and cease being a know-all promoting your ignorence over this website.
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:31 am
All LKY said was that the Americans saved us in SE Asia even though the US failed to save Indo-China. This implied that he saw US involvement in Vietnam as a noble deed. Why Lee did not send our fledgling army to Vietnam? Its not because we thought it was not a noble cause. Oh No. We saw it as another version of our own Malayan Emergency with the Americans taking the role of British, Australians and Kiwis and even Rhodesians.
...and herein lies the problem. As an unforseen bi-product of that US decade of intervention in Vietnam the countries closer Malacca Strait might well have been spared Communist takeovers. However LKY was WRONG to consider that it was a "noble deed". It was an immense shambolic policy blunder undertaken by Washington DC based upon a complete misunderstanding of the situation there.

I would even humbly suggest that LKY was wrong in attributing the strengthing of the Malacca littoral states (incl. Singapore) to that US Vietnam intervention. Likely it had more to do with something that happened closer to home in 1965-66. Remember the failed coup attempt and subsequent violent upheaval in Indonesia that ended the Indonesian Communist Party and its grip on the Sukarno government (as well as the murder of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese as incidental "roadkill")? That changed the political landscape of south east Asia. Prior to that upheaval western diplomats and journalists based in Jakarta assessed Indonesia as the most likely next S E Asian domino to "go commie" as the saying of the time went. They had focused their attention too much on the influence of the PKI on President Sukaro without taking note of the resentment that was building up against it among the Javanese peasantry.

That upheaval turned Indonesia, the largest, most heavily populated S E Asian state, implacably anti-Communist.

Your view of things has been shaped too much by experience with Communist insurgency immediately on your own home turf. That has shaped a narrow, misleading view of things on your part Cass.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:44 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:18 pm

Yes, even here we had known Communists involved in the anti-war movement but I can assure you that they did not win converts to their creed - they were merely tolerated by the other (non-commie) protesters as sympathetic fellow-travellers. itr would have neen the same in the USA.
I never said that they won people over to their creed and I don't think so. But they exerted an outsize influence on the anti-war movement because they wanted their creed to triumph in Indo China. The Socialists/Communists know that their creed is not popular.

So they hijacked more popular movements to promote policies that weaken American and strengthen their cause. The antiwar movement was a good example. They are still doing it today - for example the Black Lives Matter movement.

Just as they told lies about American participation in the Vietnam war, they are lying today that America is racist and Blacks are at risk from a racist police force. They set up autonomous zones like CHAZ or CHOP which reminds me of the Paris Commune. Now they want to defund the police.

In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power. They gained an outsize influence for such a small group by leveraging on the war.
You convey the impression that these clever, more politically astute than average commie subversives took over the leadership of the anti-war movement.
Take over may be too strong a word to use and I never said that. But they did have a large and outsize influence on the antiwar movement for a creed that has low support. Marxists like Jane Fonda and her husband Tom Hayden were good examples.
This blatant armed intervention in central Europe in the midst of the Vietnam War for the purpose of replacing a popular government with one servile to the USSR looked so much like imperialist aggression by the Communist superpower that it tore the rug of moral ascendancy from under the feet of all who had previously looked to the Soviet Uniion as representing "the wave of the future". That very evening the leader of our Communist Party, when cornered by a TV news interviewer, made a public statement condemning the Soviet military intervention.

Moscow retalliated by cutting off its money subsidy to this errant Australian sister party.

The mood of the time was probably summed up by a bit of grafitti painted by someone on a railway bridgDe adjacent to Sydney's Central railway station - CZECH SO-VIET NAM. No one tried to remove that slogan for the next 20 years.

Communist party delegates from throughout the West stood up at the Comintern meeting in Russia the following year and roundly condemned the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia - much to Moscow's embarrasment. Despite the vocal stand taken by the leadership of our Communist Party many members resigned in protest - having discovered that socialism was not what they thought it was.

Now, i'll bet that you were unaware that Communists could make a principlied stand like that, did you? Well they did!

Just as I bet you were unaware that the 1968 Soviet led invasion of Czechoslovakia to replace a (still ostensively socialist) government that the leadership in Moscow disapproved of? Just as you are likely unaware that revolutionary upheaval known as the "Prague spring" that brought that government to power had ever taken place? There is so bloody much from that era that you are abyssmally ignorent about Cassowary - so spare my tremper and cease being a know-all promoting your ignorence over this website.
I was aware of the Prague Spring and the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia. But I am unaware or perhaps forgot that some Communists opposed it. Not all. Some stayed loyal to Moscow.
Reactions from communist parties outside the Warsaw Pact were generally split. The Eurocommunist parties of Italy and Spain firmly denounced the occupation,[93] and even the Communist Party of France, which had pleaded for conciliation, expressed its disapproval about the Soviet intervention,[94] thereby publicly criticizing a Soviet action for the first time in its history.[citation needed] The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) suffered a major split over the internal disputes over the Prague Spring,[93] with the pro-Czech faction breaking ties with the Soviet leadership and founding the Eurocommunist KKE Interior. The Eurocommunist leadership of the Communist Party of Finland denounced the invasion as well, thereby however fuelling the internal disputes with its pro-Soviet minority faction, which eventually led to the party's disintegration.[95] Others, including the Portuguese Communist Party, the South African Communist Party and the Communist Party USA, however supported the Soviet position.[93]

Christopher Hitchens recapitulized the repercussions of the Prague Spring to western Communism in 2008: "What became clear, however, was that there was no longer something that could be called the world Communist movement. It was utterly, irretrievably, hopelessly split. The main spring had broken. And the Prague Spring had broken it."[93]
cassowary wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:31 pm
All LKY said was that the Americans saved us in SE Asia even though the US failed to save Indo-China. This implied that he saw US involvement in Vietnam as a noble deed. Why Lee did not send our fledgling army to Vietnam? Its not because we thought it was not a noble cause. Oh No. We saw it as another version of our own Malayan Emergency with the Americans taking the role of British, Australians, Kiwis and even Rhodesians.
...and herein lies the problem. As an unforseen bi-product of that US decade of intervention in Vietnam the countries closer Malacca Strait might well have been spared Communist takeovers. However LKY was WRONG to consider that it was a "noble deed". It was an immense shambolic policy blunder undertaken by Washington DC based upon a complete misunderstanding of the situation there.

I would even humbly suggest that LKY was wrong in attributing the strengthing of the Malacca littoral states (incl. Singapore) to that US Vietnam intervention. Likely it had more to do with something that happened closer to home in 1965-66. Remember the failed coup attempt and subsequent violent upheaval in Indonesia that ended the Indonesian Communist Party and its grip on the Sukarno government (as well as the murder of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese as incidental "roadkill")? That changed the political landscape of south east Asia. Prior to that upheaval western diplomats and journalists based in Jakarta assessed Indonesia as the most likely next S E Asian domino to "go commie" as the saying of the time went. They had focused their attention too much on the influence of the PKI on President Sukaro without taking note of the resentment that was building up against it among the Javanese peasantry.

That upheaval turned Indonesia, the largest, most heavily populated S E Asian state, implacably anti-Communist.

Your view of things has been shaped too much by experience with Communist insurgency immediately on your own home turf. That has shaped a narrow, misleading view of things on your part Cass.
Who do you think was helping Suharto and other anti-communist regimes in SE Asia? It was the Americans. The US intervened there too, albeit without US troops involved in a big way. I read a long time ago, that the CIA provided Suharto with a list of suspected Indonesian communists.

As my friend Bill (who served in Special Branch during the communist insurgency) will tell you, they were all scared sh.t of a communist victory. They knew their lives were forfeit if their side lost. They knew that their families will all suffer or even die.

The support the Americans gave in the region to anti-communist forces, put some steel in their backbones to carry on the fight. Put yourself in the shoes of an Indonesian army officer in 1965. They had to make a choice. Do I support Suharto's coup or support the Communist backed Soekarno? I have to choose the winning side. Choosing the wrong side meant death.

Knowledge of American support for their cause likely tipped their balance in the minds of many of Soeharto's officers and men. The entry of US troops in Vietnam confirmed for them that the US would back anti-Communist forces.

So US actions in Vietnam and SE Asia were for a noble cause - to stop the spread of Communism/Socialism which resulted in millions of deaths everywhere it triumphed.

There was essentially no difference between US intervention in Vietnam than British and Commonwealth forces fighting in Malaya.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:20 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:20 am
Pity neither Cass nor Neverfail thought it worthwhile commenting on my Angola experience/example... Difficulty in dealing with facts?...
What happened in Angola? I don't know much about Angola.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:19 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:44 pm


Just as they told lies about American participation in the Vietnam war, they are lying today that America is racist and Blacks are at risk from a racist police force.
Are you trying to tell us that American blacks are so dumb that they needed left wingers to tell them that? They could not have possibly gained that impression from the way that at least some of them had been treated by the cops, now could they?
cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:44 pm
In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.


Well, I agree with you that this was/is wrong. I consider America's (and our own) Vietnam involvement to have been the result of a monumental policy blunder but I never had the impression that it was based on bad intentions.

Their counterparts in Australia tried out the same pitch - and nobody listened to them.
I was aware of the Prague Spring and the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia. But I am unaware or perhaps forgot that some Communists opposed it. Not all. Some stayed loyal to Moscow.
Glad that you are Cass. That some remained loyal to Moscow would have been a foregone conclusion but that so many denounced the invasion is laudable.

Who do you think was helping Suharto and other anti-communist regimes in SE Asia? It was the Americans. The US intervened there too, albeit without US troops involved in a big way. I read a long time ago, that the CIA provided Suharto with a list of suspected Indonesian communists.


The PKI did not "own" the Sukarno government - it was merely one faction in a multi factional government ministry. However, it was through their good offices with the Soviet leadership that (late 1950's into the early 1960's) moved Premier Nikita Khruschev to equip the Indonesian air force with state-of-the-art MIG fighter aircraft.

Yes, I am aware that the CIA was at work intrriguing behind the scenes to undermine the Sukarno government. While the outcome frommyour point of view as well as mine may have been desirable the means used were quite filthy, not noble.

Having turned Indonesia against the Communists, at the cost of hundreds of thoudands of lives in the massacres that followed (at least 50,000 of them reputedly Chinese): the Americans could have afforded to withdraw their support from the regime in Saigon and gone home. The part of S E Asia worth having had been saved while Indochina was patently unsalvable.

There was essentially no difference between US intervention in Vietnam than British and Commonwealth forces fighting in Malaya.
There was a significent differnece! In the case of the Malaya emergency the British and their :lol: "colonial" allies managed to acheive their objective with the loss of surprisingly few civilian lives (as well as minimal loss of lives of their own soldiers) and little destruction of property while US bombings and other military activities in Vietnam are estimated to have cost an estimated 2 million Vietnamese (mainly civilian) lives: the displacement of at least 3 million more as homeless refugees along with enormous destruction of both private property and infrastructure. That (regardless of whatever the commies said against the war in the US) was propaganda enough against the American involvement in Vietnam - and that "propaganda" had credibility because it was true. Do you believe thast the American public were not increasingly sickened by that?
.....................................................................................................................................

The year must have been 1976. I arrived in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and booked into a (of course) Chinese hotel. The Chinese seemed to run all of the decent, budget cost hotels there. To guests like me they provided a free copy of the main KL English language daily along with providing breakfast in my bedroom. One morning a news item in that paper caught my eye.

The news was of a joint campaign by the Malaysian and Thai armies along the border between the two countries to quash the jungle camp strongholds Malaysian Communist insurgents had long established and held on the Thai side of the border. I was of course astounded. As far as I was concerned the Malaya emergency was something that had happened back in the 1950's and came to an end sometime in the early 1960's. This news of continuing insurgent activity impressed me as like a throwback to the past. This was already the year 1976 and the rest of the world had by then moved on from this sort of shit.

You truly had a persistent bunch of Communist insergents up there, didn't you Cass?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:30 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:19 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:44 pm


Just as they told lies about American participation in the Vietnam war, they are lying today that America is racist and Blacks are at risk from a racist police force.
Are you trying to tell us that American blacks are so dumb that they needed left wingers to tell them that? They could not have possibly gained that impression from the way that at least some of them had been treated by the cops, now could they?
Its just their perception. The underlying reason is because blacks commit crimes disproportionately. So naturally, police officers are suspicious of them and check them more frequently. This gave rise to the wrong perception that racism is at work. I don't believe that failure of the black community is due to racism. They are less educated, have more babies out of wedlock and commit more crimes. Its really their own fault.

East Asians in America are doing ok. So if there is racism, how come that is so? The problem is that black people, like all of us, don't like to face the facts. It is too painful to admit its their own fault. So they prefer to believe the leftist politicians that all their problems are due to racism.

cassowary wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:44 pm
In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.


Well, I agree with you that this was/is wrong. I consider America's (and our own) Vietnam involvement to have been the result of a monumental policy blunder but I never had the impression that it was based on bad intentions.

Their counterparts in Australia tried out the same pitch - and nobody listened to them.
Glad we both agree on the point that we do not see US involvement as due to bad intentions. There was no natural resources in Vietnam for the US to extract. No rich markets to sell their manufactured products. Nothing to gain. Yet the US spent blood and treasure to save the South Vietnamese from Communism. This was noble indeed. Few countries would have done this. In general, wars were waged for material gain - territorial acquisition, minerals, fertile lands, trade routes etc. This war was waged for an ideal. America wanted to make this into a better world. It saw that Socialism/Communism was evil. They were right.

[
quote] I was aware of the Prague Spring and the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia. But I am unaware or perhaps forgot that some Communists opposed it. Not all. Some stayed loyal to Moscow.
Glad that you are Cass. That some remained loyal to Moscow would have been a foregone conclusion but that so many denounced the invasion is laudable.[/quote]

Yes, it was commendable and surprising.


Yes, I am aware that the CIA was at work intrriguing behind the scenes to undermine the Sukarno government. While the outcome frommyour point of view as well as mine may have been desirable the means used were quite filthy, not noble.
You can't make an omelet without breaking and egg, Neverfail. War is hell. There was a Civil War in Indonesia going on at that time - between Communists and non-Communists. Many died. But perhaps more would have died had the Communists won. In contrast, Pinochet killed about 3,000+ people - far less than Suharto - to stop Communism. Singapore's LKY killed no one. The Communists were simply imprisoned and later released on the promise that they behave themselves. Some went into exile.
Having turned Indonesia against the Communists, at the cost of hundreds of thoudands of lives in the massacres that followed (at least 50,000 of them reputedly Chinese): the Americans could have afforded to withdraw their support from the regime in Saigon and gone home. The part of S E Asia worth having had been saved while Indochina was patently unsalvable.
That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won. Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.

There was essentially no difference between US intervention in Vietnam than British and Commonwealth forces fighting in Malaya.
There was a significent differnece! In the case of the Malaya emergency the British and their :lol: "colonial" allies managed to acheive their objective with the loss of surprisingly few civilian lives (as well as minimal loss of lives of their own soldiers) and little destruction of property while US bombings and other military activities in Vietnam are estimated to have cost an estimated 2 million Vietnamese (mainly civilian) lives: the displacement of at least 3 million more as homeless refugees along with enormous destruction of both private property and infrastructure. That (regardless of whatever the commies said against the war in the US) was propaganda enough against the American involvement in Vietnam - and that "propaganda" had credibility because it was true. Do you believe thast the American public were not increasingly sickened by that?
The reason for the disparity in deaths is because the North Vietnamese were well supplied with advanced weapons from Russia and China. The British and allies were lucky that Malaya had no Communist neighbor to supply Chin Peng and his men.
.....................................................................................................................................
The year must have been 1976. I arrived in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and booked into a (of course) Chinese hotel. The Chinese seemed to run all of the decent, budget cost hotels there. To guests like me they provided a free copy of the main KL English language daily along with providing breakfast in my bedroom. One morning a news item in that paper caught my eye.

The news was of a joint campaign by the Malaysian and Thai armies along the border between the two countries to quash the jungle camp strongholds Malaysian Communist insurgents had long established and held on the Thai side of the border. I was of course astounded. As far as I was concerned the Malaya emergency was something that had happened back in the 1950's and came to an end sometime in the early 1960's. This news of continuing insurgent activity impressed me as like a throwback to the past. This was already the year 1976 and the rest of the world had by then moved on from this sort of shit.

You truly had a persistent bunch of Communist insergents up there, didn't you Cass?
Yes. As I explained before, the announcement that the Emergency had ended was a convenient fiction that both British and Malayan leaders were eager to propagate. The British was getting tired of Malaya and wanted to go home. The Malayan leaders wanted Independence which would not be welcomed by the public if the Communists were still a threat.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:04 am

The idea of the "noble" Americans giving their blood to save the world from communism, and to strengthen democracy and liberty, is just too funny!... The US, like all empires, fights exclusively for its own benefit. Occasionally some people may benefit too from the US activities, like Europe in respect of Nazism and the soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. But that happened only because it was in the US interest to do so. Nazism is gone, communism is gone from Europe, and the American troops are still on our soil, to "protect" us from imaginary threats... In fact they are here to prevent Europe from establishing a natural and mutually beneficial partnership with Russia... Bur you, Cass and Neverfail, are quite entitled to your own fantasies... Just don't expect me to take you seriously...

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:48 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:30 am

East Asians in America are doing ok.
Spurious comparison Cassowary. East Asians, more recent immigrant arrivals to North America than the "old" American Afro's do not have the legacy of over two centuries of slavetry followed by one century of instutionalised segregation and other forms of compulsive discrimination bearing down on them. Do you really believe that a people can shrug a historical conditioning like that off in just one generaion?

On that point I am informed that Afro immigrants from places like the Caribbean Islands and even Africa itself usually prosper in the USA - much like the East Asian immigrant settlers - presumably because as fresh arrival immigrants they are not "tuned in" to the darker side of the American historical experience. Their reflexes have not been conditioned and their horizons narrowed by the sad and sorry history of the "native" American blacks - so in every case they get off to a fresh start.
So if there is racism, how come that is so?
.

Because as successful immigrants they comply much more closely to the entrenched American image of 'respectability".
So they prefer to believe the leftist politicians that all their problems are due to racism.
What leftists? A handful of individual, fringe blathering mavericks do not constitte a political left. My l8ingering impression of the US body politic is one of various degrees, shades and nuances of right wing unchallenged by any credible, effectively organised left.

In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.


If they did then they did it unchallenged in the midst of an ideaological vacumn. The government side represented by President LBJ failed to present a valid reason to the American public as to why so many their sons should be conscripted to die in a war in an obscure foreign country that few Americans at the time could even locate on the map and even fewer cared a shit about?


Yet the US spent blood and treasure to save the South Vietnamese from Communism. This was noble indeed.
The American public did not see it that way. Missing was popular support where it counted most.
Few countries would have done this.
Few would have been foolish enough to try.
Having turned Indonesia against the Communists, at the cost of hundreds of thoudands of lives in the massacres that followed (at least 50,000 of them reputedly Chinese): the Americans could have afforded to withdraw their support from the regime in Saigon and gone home. The part of S E Asia worth having had been saved while Indochina was patently unsalvable.
That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won. Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.


I utterly disbelieve that Cass.

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Vietnam ended with a peace treaty; Korea didn't.

Post by neverfail » Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:11 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:30 am

That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won. Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you serious cassowary? I mean......I mean are you so ignorent about the facts of how the two conflicts came to an end that you can seriously post that opinion? Well please permit me to enlighten you.
......................................................................................................................................

The Korean War ended not with a peace treaty but with only a ceasefire. That situation remains intact to this day - officially North Korea and South Korea are still at war.

Of course the US had to leave a garrison of its own troops there to warn off the North; 'if you try to invade South Korea like Kin Il Sung did back in 1950 you will need to fight the United States as well'. The moral obligation on the US to do so would have been undeniable. That obligation remains intact to this day (despite Donald Trump's shabby attempt to treat South Korea as a money milch cow from which to extract funding.)

But Vietnam? That ended in a peace deal. Read about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords

Paris Peace Accords

The Paris Peace Accords, (Vietnamese: Hiệp định Paris về Việt Nam) officially titled the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet Nam (Hiệp định về chấm dứt chiến tranh, lập lại hòa bình ở Việt Nam), was a peace treaty signed on January 27, 1973, to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War. The treaty included the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Republic of South Vietnam (PRG) that represented indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries. US ground forces up to that point had been sidelined with deteriorating morale and gradually withdrawn to coastal regions, not partaking in offensive operations or much direct combat for the preceding two-year period.[1][2] The Paris Agreement Treaty would in effect remove all remaining US Forces, including air and naval forces in exchange. Direct U.S. military intervention was ended, and fighting between the three remaining powers temporarily stopped for less than a day.[3] The agreement was not ratified by the United States Senate.[4][5]

The negotiations that led to the accord began in 1968
While Lyndon Johnson was still President. That's right! By the final year of his presidency even LBJ had faced up to the fact that with the Vietnam engagement he and the USA had bitten off more than they could chew. Johnson (and successor) was desperate for a face-saving means for America to withdraw from the Indochina imbroilogo without appearing to be running away.

By entering into this agreement (I am sure the American side would have understood this though of course they did not exactly trumpet the news from the rooftops) they cleared the decks for an eventual Communist takeover of the South.

Now, if you have wondered, (I am sure you have) why in April 1975 when North Vietnamese forces stormed into South Vietnam the US did not respond by airlifting US forces back into South Vietnam to block them, here is the reason. The US side was merely honouring the unwritten part of the peace treaty they entered into with Hanoi in January 1973. So stop blaiming it on American lefties.

Of course they sold out the regime in Saigon! That was unavoidable. But since majority opinion among the South Vietnam populace (believe it or not) had long wanted re-unification with the North so Vietnam could again be one country then that Southern regime was arguably no loss. Or have you never wondered why so few South Vietnamese were willing to die fighting against their brothers, cousins and co-nationals fighting on the Communist side? (And this very likely is the reason why the Saigon regime needed such massive US military intervention in a vain attempt to prop it up - it never enjoyed much popular support among its own people),

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:48 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:30 am

East Asians in America are doing ok.
Spurious comparison Cassowary. East Asians, more recent immigrant arrivals to North America than the "old" American Afro's do not have the legacy of over two centuries of slavetry followed by one century of instutionalised segregation and other forms of compulsive discrimination bearing down on them. Do you really believe that a people can shrug a historical conditioning like that off in just one generaion?

On that point I am informed that Afro immigrants from places like the Caribbean Islands and even Africa itself usually prosper in the USA - much like the East Asian immigrant settlers - presumably because as fresh arrival immigrants they are not "tuned in" to the darker side of the American historical experience. Their reflexes have not been conditioned and their horizons narrowed by the sad and sorry history of the "native" American blacks - so in every case they get off to a fresh start.
If blacks from the Caribbean can do well in America, then racism is not the problem. It is their constant bombardment from leftist politicians that the blacks can't do well that has demoralized them and became a self full filling prophecy. The blacks from the Caribbean who are recent immigrants did not grow up with this nonsense that they are going to be held back by racism.

Also, the Chinese have been in America for more than a 100 years. They first came to build the railroads in the 19th century. Like all recent immigrants to America, including the Irish, they suffered from racism too. Yet, they managed to overcome all that and have done well.
So if there is racism, how come that is so?
.

Because as successful immigrants they comply much more closely to the entrenched American image of 'respectability".
So they prefer to believe the leftist politicians that all their problems are due to racism.
What leftists? A handful of individual, fringe blathering mavericks do not constitte a political left. My l8ingering impression of the US body politic is one of various degrees, shades and nuances of right wing unchallenged by any credible, effectively organised left.
Come now, I have been observing American politics for decades. I know that it is the Democrat Party (America's left) that has the support of the black community. They gain support from blacks by posing as their protectors against (mostly imagined) racism. This is a weakness of the democratic system which was also used by irresponsible politicians in Yugoslavia and caused its break up.

In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.

If they did then they did it unchallenged in the midst of an ideaological vacumn. The government side represented by President LBJ failed to present a valid reason to the American public as to why so many their sons should be conscripted to die in a war in an obscure foreign country that few Americans at the time could even locate on the map and even fewer cared a shit about?
He explained that the US was trying to stop the spread of Communism, which had the support of a segment of the population. That explains why the Americans were sacrificing the lives of their young and lots of $$$ for ten years. Very few other nations could have generated so much willingness to sacrifice for the good of others. I already admitted that my own country would not and did not make such a sacrifice.

Remember, Vietnam was dirt poor with little natural resources. Other countries go to war to get rich. But America didn't do it for gold or oil or markets. They did so for the noble objective of stopping Socialism/Communism which killed about 100 million people.
Yet the US spent blood and treasure to save the South Vietnamese from Communism. This was noble indeed.
The American public did not see it that way. Missing was popular support where it counted most.
After a while, even the generally more idealistic American public got tired and wanted to stop their sacrifices. They were helped along by American Socialists/Communists who spread the notion that the US was an evil imperialist regime oppressing the Vietnamese. Unfortunately, many useful idiots believed them. Their real agenda was of course to help Communism win the global contest. They are still trying in the US. The toppling of US statues of America's founders is a good example. This time, they are getting useful idiots that America was conceived in evil.
Few countries would have done this.
Few would have been foolish enough to try.
Few other countries don't have the idealism to try, including mine.
Having turned Indonesia against the Communists, at the cost of hundreds of thoudands of lives in the massacres that followed (at least 50,000 of them reputedly Chinese): the Americans could have afforded to withdraw their support from the regime in Saigon and gone home. The part of S E Asia worth having had been saved while Indochina was patently unsalvable.
That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won. Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.


I utterly disbelieve that Cass.
They lost their will to fight at a time when they were on the cusp of victory. The left in America was the straw that broke the camel's back. The won the battle for Indo-China but eventually lost the Cold War. But they are still fighting. See the recent protests and toppling of statues of US founders. See their support of open borders. See their 1619 project. They are still trying to destroy America.

If Trump loses the election to a now radicalized Democratic Party, America is finished.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:54 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm

Come now, I have been observing American politics for decades.
So have I!
I know that it is the Democrat Party (America's left) that has the support of the black community.


Presumably because they have found by experience that, as a rule. they get a better deal from them while from the Republican side they usually get nothing. Stop assuming that blacks are vacuous dupes who do not know on which side their bread is buttered. I refuse to believe that!

In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:48 pm
If they did then they did it unchallenged in the midst of an ideaological vacumn. The government side represented by President LBJ failed to present a valid reason to the American public as to why so many their sons should be conscripted to die in a war in an obscure foreign country that few Americans at the time could even locate on the map and even fewer cared a shit about?
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm
He explained that the US was trying to stop the spread of Communism,
.... and he also earned himself a reputation for being a liar. No one believed Johnson in the end.
That explains why the Americans were sacrificing the lives of their young and lots of $$$ for ten years. Very few other nations could have generated so much willingness to sacrifice for the good of others.
"Americans" (if by that you mean their general public) were NOT. It was being done, forced upon them, in their name by those placed over them.

From where do you get the silly impression that "saving Vietnam" was ever a popular cause within American society at large?

Indeed, when are you going to finally snap outm of your private world of romantic make believe?
I already admitted that my own country would not and did not make such a sacrifice.
In 1965, the year that Johnson made the fatal decision to ramp up US troop numbers in South Vietnam requiring conscripted young men to make up the numbers; Singapore was struggling to get itself set up as a sovering republic having just bheen kicked out of malaysia. Your country was then in no position to pursue ambitious foreign policy goals. That non-committal positioning for the sake of commerce and trade advantages abroad may have to come to an end soon as the global geopolitical shift presently coming about bears down upon it. No one likes a passive hitchhiker-passenger for an ally.
After a while, even the generally more idealistic American public got tired and wanted to stop their sacrifices.
Especially as those sacrifices were patently inequible and the USA itself was in no danger.
That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won.
If the Americans has "nearly won" in Vietnam they would not have sought out, almost bgegged for, a peace treaty with Hanoi in order to permit them a dignified exit from the war (or at least the appearence of one).
Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.


:lol: Against the terms and conditions of the Paris peace accord with Hanoi - are you joking, Cass?

Post Reply