• PugJesus@piefed.socialM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeah, the “20 years hard labor” kinda clued me in that south vietnam mightve been evil. Seriously, no agenda here other than that forced labor is barbaric, but I dont know what it was like to live in north vietnam. Would you say that they were justified in their use of things such as Punji sticks? Ive always thought those were barbaric too, but not quite as barbaric as Agent Orange. Certainly more effective though when factoring in that youre not doing massive damage to your own troops and the environment.

    I’d say, personally, that the means of resistance used by North Vietnam were largely valid. Having someone stabbed by a stick is not really fundamentally crueler than shooting them, even if infection is what finishes them off. The poor prison conditions are arguable; but the use of torture on PoWs is indefensible. That being said, South Vietnam tortured North Vietnamese PoWs, so it’s not like it was some exceptional sin of NV; we just remember North Vietnam’s because it was inflicted on American PoWs.

    Interesting enough, the US government actually stopped using Agent Orange considerably before the end of the war when it came to light that it had deleterious long-term effects on people. The US had enough bad press during the war, it didn’t need ‘knowingly sanctioning chemical warfare’ in addition. Agent Orange was supposed to be just a defoliant - which has its own set of problems, mind you, but is not a war crime, unlike use of chemical weapons.

    To rephrase, I understand that an occupying/invading force is expected to be met with lethal resistance, but was the situation so bad/ cruel that hypothetical war crimes(i have no idea if the north did war crimes, i would imagine yes, but i know the US did) were justified in self defense?

    The North and the South both performed numerous war crimes, and in both cases, it was… pretty militarily irrelevant to the outcome. I’d say the war crimes weren’t justified in self-defense, but also that that judgement is pretty married to the fact that war crimes generally don’t actually help the cause of self-defense. They’re just the product of soldiers’ and politicians’ anger, without a deeper rational basis.

    Also, theyre capitalist now? Were they even communist to begin with, or was that just another example of the US not having any clue what communism is? Or have they just shifted more towards capitalism?

    North Vietnam was definitely Communist at the time, but they’ve shifted towards capitalism in the late 80s/90s.

    Funny enough, there’s a great documentary called The Fog of War, wherein the American Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara, is interviewed about the whole situation in retrospect. He muses, fairly early on, that one of the core conflicts between the American foreign policy establishment and North Vietnam was that the USA had no fucking clue about the background situation in Vietnam.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I appreciate it! I dont really have any more to ask but your knowledge is invaluable. This thread has definitely helped me gain a greater understanding of the sides and backers of the vietnam war better.

    • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      the US government actually stopped using Agent Orange considerably before the end of the war when it came to light that it had deleterious long-term effects on people.

      It took many veterans developing chloracne and cancer and many civilians giving birth to defective children for the population to start protesting the chemical weapon and the government finally phasing out its use.

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It took many veterans developing chloracne and cancer and many civilians giving birth to defective children for the population to start protesting the chemical weapon and the government finally phasing out its use.

        … except Agent Orange doesn’t cause cancer that quickly, and the government phased out its use in response to stateside scientific studies with animal experiments, not veteran outcry, which largely didn’t begin until after the Vietnam War as a whole was over and the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange began to manifest in veterans.

        • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Operation Ranch Hand lasted almost 10 years. Chloracne and pregnancies don’t take that long. I don’t have sources about the cancers*, but seems entirely possible.

          *edit: about how long their onset takes. The one journalistic source I had listed cancers among the reasons for protests.

          • PugJesus@piefed.socialM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            US troop presence was minimal until '65, and even then, most the US troops exposed would not have immediately gone on to impregnate someone in the States (who, thus, the US government might bother paying attention to), considering multi-year tours were and are the norm for military deployment. Use of Agent Orange was ended in '71.

    • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Look up a novel from the time, “The Ugly American”

      The title character is an American engineer who goes to the mythical country and shows the locals how to build cheap water pumps that make farming hillsides much easier.

      Every American who shows up to the place and does good is eventually replaced by a dolt who can’t speak the language.