Hacker News Reader

Comment by knuththetruth | Hacker News Reader

The country devolved into civil war after the US deposed and had executed the country’s leader, who they had previously corruptly installed, but I guess found insufficiently compliant.

If it’s not “imperialism” to fix elections, then overthrow and murder the people you help elected, pushing the country into horrific violence (which you then exacerbate), I’d like to know what rises to the level of your definition of the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup

View on HN

Even today the Vietnamese are very divided about that period of their history. It's a complex issue without clear heroes or villains.

If you spend much time in the country now you'll find it hard to argue that the current government is really prioritizing the needs of the people.

The country was undergoing decolonization following WWII and got caught in the middle of two nuclear powers who couldn't openly fight each other without risking a nuclear exchange. It's a miracle that Vietnam isn't split in two like Korea.

I'm not trying to rationalize the conduct of the US, there's plenty of blood on our hands when it comes to removing/installing foreign leaders, but this was a very complex situation with many players that lasted for over 30 years following the end of WWII. It's disingenuous to reduce it to 'American imperialism'.

I don’t think “American imperialism” has to be a reduction. American imperialism is one part of a complex picture.

to be fair, you should mention what North Vietnamese government did AFTER the war: concentration camps, "New Economic Zones" that forced land from South Vietnamese, and the resulting boat people...

And in the North before any American military involvement. Hence the 1 million plus refugees from the North to South. Most of whom greatly desired to not be under communism, which was clearly the aggressor.

The country was in a state of civil war from the late 1940s, and North Vietnam was the sight of much intra-Vietnamese bloodshed due to revolution, land "reform" etc, without France or US involvement in the matter. In any case, your example may be undemocratic, poor judgement, etc, but that's not the same as "imperialism".

This is just shifting goalposts to justify the horror of the US war machine, whose interventions since Vietnam have followed the same disastrous pattern. And quite the minimizing elision to call this “poor judgement.”

Staging coups and killing leaders, not imperialism. Engaging in false flag attacks so you can maintain control of a foreign country, not imperialism. Covering up civilian massacres and lying about how many of your troops are dying to maintain support for the war at home, not imperialism. And so on and so on and so on.

Again, what to your mind constitutes imperialism if these actions do not?

Would you consider Soviet troops and materiel in North Vietnam as imperialism then as well?

Absolutely. The USSR was an imperialist State Capitalist regime.

Indeed. It is actually quite refreshing to see someone consistent on that point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com