Monday, April 20, 2015
Online Seminar
1. Please make three comments on the following question: Should the United States have become involved in Vietnam? Please be sure to use evidence to support your answers. You should use the textbook readings, the reading packets, the video and the If I Die in a Combat Zone as your sources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that the US should not have become involved in the war in Vietnam because Vietnam as a whole did not want to be separated into two different parts to begin with. When Tim O'Brian was in Prague, Czechoslovakia he explained a moment when he was able to talk to him about the war and Tim explained, "I asked if the North Vietnamese were not sending troops to the South in order to establish a communist regime in Saigon, and he laughed again, nervously, and informed me that to speak of a divided Vietnam was historically and politically incorrect" (95). When the US went into the war in Vietnam, they did not realize that not only did most of the Vietnamese not want a separate government or separated country, rather they wanted to unite together as one. I feel as though the US just simply did not learn or choose to realize what the majority of the Vietnamese people wanted for their country. Although the country may have become communist, I feel that the US should not be the ones to decide how the government runs in other countries as long as the majority of the country is happy and the government is not looking to harm others. In "If I Die in a Combat Zone," all the Vietnamese student wanted was for Vietnam to simply be called "Vietnam" and not separated into to. The US should have been able to recognize the hopes of the actual people living in the country before they got involved.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with that, Margaret, and I think it's important to note that the war was not wanted in Vietnam or in the United States. The United States claimed they were fighting this war to maintain a democratic voice in the government, but were not listening to the voices of the people in their own country. In an anti-war propaganda article directed at soldiers fighting in the Vietnam. It stated, "We hope that you too find yourself, as a human being, unable to tolerate this nightmare war, and we hope that you will oppose it" (Reading Packet). This war was not wanted by the people of either side fighting in it. The protests against this war were widespread and passionate. The government was ignoring the wants of its people, and bypassing normal procedures for war. This was very hypocritical for a country that claimed to be promoting the people's voice in government. Neither the Americans or Vietnamese believed that this war was worth fighting. The US was only fighting to maintain their power in the world, a power that they gained through listening to the ideas and beliefs of the American public. In order to win a war, you need support for the cause that you are fighting for, and the United States certainly did not have that in the Vietnam War.
DeleteI like the point Margret brought up when she said, "I feel that the US should not be the ones to decide how the government runs in other countries as long as the majority of the country is happy and the government is not looking to harm others." I found that this statement showed the irony behind the US involvement in Vietnam. The US was supporting the Southern Vietnamese government when the people of the South did not want Ngo Dinh Diem in power. In reading packet 4, image 5, there is a picture of a Southern troop shooting a civilian during the Tet Offensive. The man is not armed, yet the trooper still puts a gun to an innocent man’s head. This picture showed how the US was wrong for being involved in Vietnam because our reason for even being involved was to protect the freedom of the people. As shown by this photo, the US was doing the complete opposite. Instead of fighting for the freedom, the US was risking American lives to support a government that abused and killed their own people.
DeleteI also do not think that the United States should have become involved in Vietnam because the conflict that they initially got involved in was the French imposing their rule over a unified Vietnam. According to Vietnam: Peace with Honor, “[After World War II ended] Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam’s independence and established a provisional government. For the first time in its modern history, Vietnam was free of foreign domination.” So we know that Vietnam was a unified nation right after World War II but because they “owned” it before the war, the French wanted Vietnam back so they began trying to take it over again. However, the Vietnamese would not submit to imperialism again. This is when the US got involved. The US started sending money and arms to the French so that they could regain control. To the US, this may have come across as a perfect opportunity to implement containment policy but in reality they were helping the French try to unjustly impose their rule on the Vietnamese. The French were infringing on Vietnam’s independence and had no right to take it over again. The US were aiding the villain.
DeleteI agree with what everyone has said about neither side wanting the war to happen. Vietnam had just ended conflict with the French and was not eager for more combat. The US had had its fill of violence after WW2 and the Korean War as well. However, despite neither side wanting conflict, the US intervened to “contain” communism. While Vietnam was trying to get back on its feet, the US was attempting to ensure that the country would be under democracy. The US instilled the idea that communism was a threat to the Vietnamese people and furthered along the process of the civil war. In a reading it says, “…we fount that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from,” (Kerry). The US instilled the idea that communism was dangerous to the people in Vietnam. The US spread the roots of violence between the Vietnamese people. However, they were uninterested in fighting their own people so, the US stepped in to help fight. In essence, the US was fighting another country’s civil war that the US had started. All US intervention did was prolong fighting that was both unnecessary and unwanted.
DeleteI do not believe that the United States should have become involved with Vietnam, because the spread of Communism was happening too far away to have a tangible impact on the United States. President Eisenhower believed in a “falling domino principle,” stating that if one nation falls under the “horrors” of communism, then all the surrounding countries will soon do the same. In an interview with Eisenhower, he stated, “Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all has already lost some 450 million of its people to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can’t afford greater losses” (Reading Packet). The spread of Communism in Southeast Asia would not have any adverse effects on the Western world. In addition, Eisenhower’s theory only states that nearby countries will fall under Communist rule and it would be unlikely for America to be affected by the domino theory. This principle is quite far-fetched, and was probably more of a cautionary belief than a genuine concern. The U.S. military’s attempts to stop the spread of Communism was unsuccessful, further proving that their involvement was a flaw in the government’s judgment.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should not have become involved in Vietnam because the war was destined to be lost from the beginning. Many Americans did not believe in the cause, as the outcome would not directly affect the United States. Many military-aged men only went to fight because they were drafted and had no choice. Although the “domino theory” was put out as a reason why to fight, Vietnam becoming communist and ending the division was not going to directly harm the United States. The American soldiers often did not want to be there, and surviving was considered the biggest victory rather than winning the war. In the book “If I Die in a Combat Zone”, a soldier is envied for having his foot cut off. Other soldiers marvel, “’Man you’re a lucky sonofabitch. War’s over.’ ‘…You got yourself a million-dollar wound there. Home tomorrow, no problem” (pg. 153). Instead of be thankful that they are safe, the other soldiers are jealous that their comrade gets to leave combat because he lost his foot. The soldiers who were fighting on behalf of the United States were not engaged in the cause because they did not really gain or lose either way with the war. In comparison, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces were extremely passionate, as they would do anything to defend their independence. The difference between the Vietnamese soldiers with much at stake was too much of a match for the American soldiers just trying to survive their time in the war. The United States was destined to fail in this war because the outcome was almost meaningless to the American public.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah's statement that the American soldiers that were drafted into the Vietnam War had no desire to fight for the cause that their country presented them with, and due to this, the U.S. was almost destined to lose the war. At the beginning of the conflict, the United States' government had claimed that they were going off to fight Communism and protect the democracy of the Vietnamese people. However, as time went on and more and more American lives were lost, the men stopped believing in this cause, and saw themselves more as bait for Viet Cong ambushes. A member of the American army, Captain Michael O'Mera, explains this feeling to Congress, describing how the army "... made their ground units bait by sending them into the swamps... where they would search for the enemy and at night set up in a night-logger or a combat-patrol position... This is where the enemy would most likely hit them. They were bait" (Reading Packet). This low morale of the soldiers hit the American military hard because the men saw no real cause for fighting in the war, and some would even turn to harming themselves just to get out of combat. This lack of support on the front made the government slowly realize that the United States' would lose the war despite all of the money and men spent to try to succeed. In this way, I believe that the United States should not have gotten involved in Vietnam, since they had no real cause for the soldiers to fight for.
DeleteI agree that America was destined to lose the war from the beginning because, not only did it have no support at home and in its troops, it also had no support from the Vietnamese people. Like Margaret mentioned, in “If I Die In A Combat Zone,” the North Vietnamese student tells Tim O'Brien that “to speak of a divided Vietnam was historically and politically incorrect” (95). The North and South Vietnamese people thought of themselves as one country, even though the rest of the world thought of them as two. When the US sent troops into South Vietnam to fight against the North Vietnamese, the people of Vietnam did not see it as the US trying to protect them and their freedom because they did not need protection from North Vietnam; that would just be protection from themselves. Instead they saw the US as invaders, especially since the US propped up Ngo Dinh Diem as president against public sentiment. If the South Vietnamese people did not want the US there in the first place, the US should not have expected much support from them. Since the US had little support from the American people, even less support from its drafted troops, and almost no support from the Vietnamese people themselves, it was unreasonable to think that they could win the war, so they should not have intervened.
DeleteI do not think that the people of Vietnam’s drive for independence could be overestimated. Their passion was quite evident in the fact that North Vietnam repelled the advances of a US backed French invasion after World War II. This expressed their passion so well because right before the French invaded this time, the Japanese had invaded and Ho Chi Minh had gained national unity. All of these changes in power and fighting would have meant that the Vietnamese would have been somewhat tired of fighting but nevertheless prevented French defeat. Another example of their passion is that according to Vietnam: Peace with Honor, the Vietnamese resisted initial French imperialism but “The French eventually tamed the resistance but… it was only through acts of incredible brutality.” History had shown that the Vietnamese would not roll over but had to face inhumane injustices to give up. The United States should have looked to Vietnamese history and recognized that the Vietnamese are a force to be reckoned with and that freedom is not something they give up. The United States should not only have recognized Vietnamese drive but they should have also realized that they were fighting against a people’s freedom and when Great Britain did the same, the US started the revolutionary war and won.
DeleteI completely agree that the low morale of the American soldiers serves as evidence to why the US should not have intervened in Vietnam. Along with soldiers not wanting to fight, the overwhelming anti-war movements back home further decreased morale. American citizens were more concerned with opposing the war than supporting their troops. These movements are described in the Vietnam War video, “Opposition to the war did grow among Americans from all walks of life. But at the same time, the anti-war movement merged with the counterculture of the 1960s… Even as the war became increasingly unpopular, Americans still feared the menace of Communism” (Video). This lack of support gave US soldiers very little to fight for. Most of these radical beliefs about the war revolved around pop-culture. This brought more attention to the protests than the war itself. The only reason people had any interest in the war was because Communism was still a very real fear for Americans. Even the people who opposed the war, still feared Communism. I think these people wanted to contain the issue of Communism in a non-violent way. Unfortunately, that is not a possibility in a world where military forces are the most efficient motivators to change a country’s infrastructure. When military officials saw such a strong opposition to the war, they should have known that they would not have much success in the future. Thereby giving another reason to why the US military had no place staying in Vietnam as long as it did.
DeleteI agree with everybody so far who says that the U.S. should not have gotten involved in the Vietnam war. I think that Tim O'Brien outlined a really important point in If I Die in a Combat Zone. The U.S. argued that communism hurt the people. If they beleived this was the case, then it is justifiable for the U.S. to want to eradicate the communist government for purely humanitarian purposes. The problem though, was that in going into Vietnam the U.S. ended up doing more harm than good. O'Brien said, "I see evil in the history of Ho's rule in the north. I see evil in the history of the string of rulers we've helped in the South. Evil on both sides. But the third evil, the death and pain, must also be counted in,"(pg 60). What he highlights is the imbalance of "evil" between the opposing forces. O'Brien believes that if the U.S. had never gotten involved, evil would still be there, but it would be a lesser evil than there is currently. This imbalance discredits the claim that the U.S. got involved for the sake of removing the "evil" from Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maya's statement that the U.S. ended up doing more harm than good in Vietnam. While the United States' government remained firm on the idea that they were continuing to fight in Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism, the actions of their military strayed away from this cause. Throughout Vietnam, there were areas known as "Free-fire" zones that allowed the U.S. military to shoot anyone that happened to pass through the area, whether they were suspected of being Viet Cong or not. Similarly, the soldiers were often given orders to shoot and kill women and children because the military believed that they could not take any chances on letting potential Viet Cong members go. In the novel "If I Die in a Combat Zone" by Tim O'Brien, Tim recalls a reporter asking Major Callicles "... if there isn't a distinction between the unintentional slaying of civilians from the air... and the willful shooting of individual human beings... taking aim at a ditch of unarmed, desperate people" (O'Brien, 194). These shootings of innocent people caused many people both at home and at war to question the cause that the American military was fighting for. It no longer seemed that the goal was to just stop the spread of Communism. If the U.S. had not gotten involved in the conflict in the first place, both American and Vietnamese lives would have been spared, and the issue would not have escalated as quickly and badly as it did. Based on this brutality by the American military, the United States should not have gotten involved in Vietnam.
DeleteTo play devil’s advocate, I’d argue that the U.S. should have gotten involved in Vietnam but they should have left much earlier than they did. At the time, the U.S. acted as best as they could have based on the outcome of WWII. A reading from packet three states, “If a line had been drawn against Hitler from the beginning, he would have been forced to back away, and the sequence of events that led inexorably to the outbreak of war would have been interrupted”(Why We Were in Vietnam). Looking back on the war, it is obvious that it did not help the U.S. or Vietnam in anyway. But at the time, the politicians based their plans partly on what happened in Germany. Going into war in Vietnam seemed like it would save the most people they possibly could from a government that they believed to be cruel. The American government did what they thought was best and did not go into the war with the belief that they were destroying a country for no good reason. However, the government should have gotten the army out of Vietnam as soon as they realized that Ngo Dinh Diem was not a good leader and that the Vietnamese people did not support this war.
ReplyDeleteThe United States had always fought to protect their belief of freedom, and Vietnam was no exception. The United States believed that communism was the worst possible thing to happen to other nations. They wanted to protect the idea of freedom, which to the United States, meant protecting democracy in Vietnam. In a speech, Lyndon B. Johnson proclaimed, "The U.S. will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom" (LBJ Packet). America believed strongly in democracy, and to them, fighting in Vietnam meant fighting for Vietnamese freedom. They had the power and resources to aid what they thought was a good cause, so they decided to fight for it. America had fought for democracy before, and if they believed in the cause, getting involved was not a bad idea. Although they should have pulled out sooner, getting involved initially was not a bad idea.
DeleteI agree with Taylor in the statement that the US should have gotten involved in Vietnam but they should have left earlier than they did. If the US hadn't gotten involved, after just stating that they would help countries that were beginning to fall to communism, then it would have looked bad on them. Also, there were people in South Vietnam that did not want communism in their country. In the second packet one of the documents states, "However deeply Vietnamese and other colonized people admired America's own war of independence against Great Britain, or its democratic political system, however impressed they were with America's economic and, late, military power, a revolution led by a disciplined communist party seemed to many of them the only possible choice" (A Little History by Way of Introduction). The Vietnamese used the determination that the US had towards Great Britain to believe that there was a way to get what they truly wanted in their government. But they also felt that they might just have to succumb to communism without help. This is where the US stepped in because there were individuals who did not want what the North Vietnamese were bringing to the country. However, I still believe that even though the US had agreed to help all countries in preventing the spread of communism, that they should have recognized similar situations in the past that could have helped them in making the decision that getting involved with Vietnam was not a good idea.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think the idea that the US got involved in Vietnam to prevent a second Nazi regime-esque regime is a sham. One of the reasons I think it is a sham is that the US lets national atrocities happen in other countries so long as it does not or will not affect the US’ economic or political goals. A great example of this is our lack of involvement in the Rwandan Genocide in which nearly seventy percent of a Tutsi in Rwanda were murdered. Another reason I think that Nazi-esque prevention is a sham is because in Part B of Section Four of NSC-68, one of the US’ Cold War goals is stated to be “Make ourselves strong, both in the way in which we affirm our values in the conduct of our national life, and in the development of our military and economic strength.” This statement was in reference to how the US can prevent the spread of Soviet influence which makes it seem that the US’ real motivation for Vietnam intervention was to fight the Soviets. The final reason I think Nazi regime-esque prevention is a sham is that if the US really did not want totalitarianism and unjust rule to take over Vietnam, then they would not have supported the French who were imposing their will on the Vietnamese and they also would not have encouraged Diem to ignore the planned Vietnam wide elections that were supposed to unify Vietnam. Nazi regime-esque prevention, to me, is just one of the many lies that the US government fed its citizens to get away with fighting in Vietnam.
DeleteGoing off of what Margaret is saying, while still connecting to Taylor's point about the US being justified in not wanting to allow the Holocaust to repeat itself, I think that the promise in Communism scared the United States, particularly in Vietnam. Because the Vietnamese were trying to escape colonialism by the French, Communism seemed like a promising alternative described in the introduction of the second packet. The source read, "Communism, in the 1930s, seemed to hold the answer to the fundamental problems facing colonized people everywhere. The Soviet Union presented itself as a model for how a country might develop a modern industrial society and practice social justice at the same time." The Soviet model's appeal to other countries caused the United States to see countries like Vietnam as a threat to global peace. If the United States can protect countries like Vietnam from Communism they could protect the global future. Therefore, the US was justified in their minds when getting involved in Vietnam because it was going to benefit the world by not allowing Communism to spread.
DeleteThe US should not have gotten involved in Vietnam because they were not fighting for the freedom of the people. The Vietnamese just wanted freedom from outside influence. In the “Rise and Fall of American Power,” it wrote
ReplyDelete“We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever...We found most people didn’t know the difference between communism and democracy. They only want to work in the rice paddies without helicopter strafing them (What Was Found and Learned in Vietnam). The US believed that all forms of communism posed a threat to America. The Vietnamese people, however, did not even know what communism was. How could the Vietnam Communism be threatening to Americans if they didn’t even understand the communist party? Also, the Vietnamese wanted to be left alone. The US was not actually fighting for the Southern Vietnamese freedom since the people did not want any colonial influence in their country. The people of a nation have the right to decide their own fate in government so the US should not have gotten involved in Vietnam.
I agree that the United States was fighting for illegitimate reasons. I also think it is important to point out that choosing the government of other countries is not the decision of the United States, so they shouldn't have gotten involved. The United States thought that they should help the South Vietnamese defend their independence, but most citizens wanted the sides to rejoin. The Americans were the ones who kept the two halves from rejoining. The country was temporarily divided until an upcoming election, but the American’s views on communism made them block the election. The North resorted to aggressive measures to reunite the country, but the Americans stepped in to defend against this aggression. John Hopkins said, “Why are we in South Viet-Nam? We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Viet-Nam. We have helped to build and we have helped to defend.” The United States said their reason was to defend South Vietnam, but many people did not want the corrupt government in the south to remain when the country could reunite. The US did not have a legitimate reason to interfere in the war, as they were working against the wishes of many of the citizens. The US interfered for their own view on communism, even though they did so by establishing a corrupt democracy. The US fought for this war that was insignificant to the United States and that was widely unsupported and was not backed by good reasoning.
DeleteI agree that the United States was in the wrong in trying to meddle with another country's government. As Hannah said, the US wanted to keep communism from becoming a significant part of the Vietnamese government, yet it is not the United States role in the world to dictate the type of government another country chooses. Although the United States believed they were doing what was best for the world, saying "the U.S. will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom" (Lyndon B. Jackson), they overstepped their own power. While the richer, more prosperous countries have the responsibility to aid those who struggle, in this situation, the US should have led by example. This type of approach would have a.) avoided thousands of vain deaths b.) allowed for growth of the the US's own government and economy instead of investing top dollar on a foreign country that neither the "enemy" nor "ally" wanted to fight. The United States should not have become militarily involved in Vietnam because it was not their right to try to dictate the type of government in place.
DeleteBefore we can determine whether or not the U.S. should have gotten involved, I think we need to determine WHY the U.S. got involved in Vietnam. I think we can all agree at this point that the U.S. got involved in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. With that being said, the U.S. should not have gotten involved in Vietnam. Vietnam presented no direct threat to United States, yet the United States still got involved. In a response to President Lyndon B. Johnson, Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh stated, "Vietnam is thousands of miles away from the United States. The Vietnamese people have never done any harm to the United States." I can understand that the U.S. was really concerned with the spread of communism, but Vietnam did not threaten American lives, and according to Ho Chi Min, they had no intention to. The costs outweighed the benefits of sending troops to Vietnam. It made zero sense for America to send young men thousands of miles away to a country that represented no threat. Thus, America should not have gotten involved.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you are saying, Jack. However, we know a lot more than we did back then. Retrospectively, a Communist Vietnam would have posed no threat to the US, but at the time, they did not have as much information. I think that, given what we knew then, the US should have become involved. The spread of Communism was a very real threat that caused a lot of fear back then in America. The US viewed the creation of the Communist government in North Vietnam as an attempt, presumably by the Soviet Union, to spread Communism into Southeast Asia, as opposed to the movement for Vietnamese independence that it really was. Ho Chi Minh wanted to reunite North and South Vietnam as one country, but the US viewed this as a further attempt to spread Communism. If the Communist powers of the world had spread Communism to North Vietnam and were trying to spread it to South Vietnam, as the US thought, it was a reasonable assumption that they would continue to try to spread Communism further from there. In a 1965 speech at Johns Hopkins University, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “We must say in southeast Asia–as we did in Europe–in the words of the Bible: 'Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further' ” (Packet 3). While a Communist Vietnam would not directly affect the US, the spread of Communism throughout southeast Asia would, which justified US intervention.
DeleteI like the point that Philippe brought up when he said, "The spread of Communism was a very real threat that caused a lot of fear back then in America." I agree with this statement because America had seen other situations of communism where it threatened the safety of its citizens as well as other countries. Lyndon Johnson discussed that “over this war-and all Asia-is another reality: the deepening shadow of communist China. The rulers in Hanoi are urged on by Peking. This is a regime which has destroyed freedom in Tibet, which has attacked India, and has been condemned by the United Nations for aggression in Korea. It is a nation which is helping forces of violence in almost every continent.” Before entering into Vietnam, the US had seen situations such as China where communism had threatened the safety of many citizens. Not only did it harm Chinese people but also the citizens of other countries. Looking at other examples of communist countries, America saw how a communistic Vietnam could potentially threaten the safety of the Vietnamese. It was also unknown if Vietnam would act like China and possibly harm other nations. America was right for becoming involved in Vietnam because communism was a realistic threat based on previous communist countries such as China.
DeleteI believe that the US should have become involved in Vietnam. However, I believe that it should have become involved much earlier. From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, Vietnam was under the control of France and most of its people wanted independence. In 1946, Ho Chi Minh, the president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam requested assistance from President Harry Truman in the Vietnamese war for independence from France (Packet 3). In the telegram, Ho Chi Minh said, “I therefore most earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people to interfere urgently in support of our independence” (Jackson, 2012). Given the US policy at the time of supporting self-determination, the US had every reason to grant Ho Chi Minh's request; it would have supported America's goal for supporting freedom and democracy across the world, and was justified by their foreign policy goals. The US should have intervened then, even if they just supported Vietnam in negotiations with France. If they had, Vietnam would have become a democratic republic, and Ho Chi Minh would not have had to turn to the Communists for support against the French. However, President Truman just ignored the request, so Ho Chi Minh got support from the Communists instead. Thus, when Vietnam became independent, it set up a Communist government in North Vietnam, and the US thought that it had to interfere to prevent the Communism from spreading. If the US had become involved when Ho Chi Minh requested their help, the Communist government would not have been created, and the entire conflict would have been averted.
ReplyDeleteJackson, David. "When Ho Chi Minh Wrote President Truman." USA Today. Gannett, 28 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. .
Philippe, I hear what your saying, and your logic makes sense that the US should have gotten involved earlier in Vietnam. However, I still assert that the US should not have gotten involved in Vietnam. There's no guarantee that Vietnam would have become democratic if the US intervened in the 1940's to help Vietnam gain independence from France. The article, "A Little History, by Way of Introduction" from packet number three went into depth about Ho Chi Min's political influences. The article stated that Ho, "...drew inspiration from the German philosopher and revolutionary, Karl Marx, whose analysis of the political economy of capitalism and the potential for a more equitable socialist transformation of society was powerful and persuasive." (Packet 3). Karl Marx's work had a distinct influence on Ho Chi Min, and the US had no way of preventing that. No matter how hard the U.S. tried, Vietnam stayed communist. Thus, getting involved in Vietnam earlier would not have helped the U.S. at all. Packet 3 also stated that "France appealed to the U.S. for military help" (Packet 3), not Vietnam. Had the U.S. gotten involved earlier, they would have just lost earlier.
DeleteI agree with Phillipe on this, because the only reason ho chi Minh was turning to communism was because it was helping them escape from colonialism. If the US had intervened before Ho Chi Minh went to Europe and learned of Marxism they would not have become communist. Also, intervening early would have made more sense with the reasons that LBJ gave for invading after the gulf of Tonkin resolution. In his message to congress on the Gulf of Tonkin LBJ states, "1. America keeps her word... 2. The issue is about the future of southeast Asia as a whole... 3. Our purpose is peace... 4. This is not a Jungle war but a struggle for freedom on every front of Human activity," (packet 3). If you take these points and apply it to helping the Vietnamese gain freedom from the French they would make more sense. The first point would have made sense in this situation, because America had promised to protect the freedom of small nations from expanding oppressive regimes, such as the French. The second point would make sense because if Vietnam were free from French oppression other countries would rebel in a similar way and gain freedom. In this case Vietnam would have become democratic thanks to the help of the US. With the third point it would have stopped prematurely the first and second Indochina wars. The fourth point would make sense because the Vietnamese people would actually be free. Even if your point were true, Jack, that Vietnam would still become communist, it is better to be ruled by an oppressive regime of your own people than that of foreigners.
DeleteSimilar to what others have said, I believe that the United States should not have gotten involved in Vietnam because the American forces were fighting in a place where they were not wanted, and the American military did not have as good of a reason for fighting as the North Vietnamese Army did. As the war progressed in Vietnam, many soldiers came to the realization that the Vietnamese people did not want them for fighting for them. These people had just won their independence from a major colonial power, France, and did not want more foreign countries coming in and involving themselves in their affairs. This gave the North Vietnamese army a worthy cause to fight for, which in turn encouraged their soldiers to fight until they were victorious. In "If I Die in a Combat Zone" by Tim O'Brien, Tim meets with a lieutenant from the North Vietnamese Army and he "... asked if the North Vietnamese were not the aggressors in the war. [The lieutenant] laughed and stated that... they were defending Vietnam from American aggression" (O'Brien, 95). This idea that the Americans were the aggressors in the war was what kept the North Vietnamese Army from losing the crisis: they had a worthy cause that every soldier believed in and was ready to die for. This contrasted greatly to the morale of the American soldiers, because very few of them knew what they were truly fighting for, and they wanted nothing more than to fight, kill, and get home. If the United States had never gotten involved in Vietnam in the first place, the North Vietnamese army wouldn't have had a cause such as that one to bind their people together , and many lives could have been spared on both sides. Based on the fact that the American military's presence was not wanted in Vietnam, the United States should not have gotten involved in the Asian country.
ReplyDeleteI think what you two are saying makes a lot of sense. The United States shouldnt have gotten involved in the Vietnam war because the people did not support the U.S. and their beleifs and goals. In If I Die in a Combat Zone, O'Brien recalls a conversation that he had with a VIetnamese student at his school. In the conversation, O'Brien refers to "North Vietnam" and the student tells him that "to speak of a divided Vietnam was historically and politically incorrect." (pg 95). From the get-go, the Vietnamese did not buy into what the U.S. was trying to do. They did not believe in the division of their country. Due to that, they never saw the war as a war within their nation. They saw their country as united, and the United States as agressors against Vietnam. The U.S. should never have gotten involved in a war in which they were fighting for principles that were not supported by the people.
DeleteI do not think that the US should have been involved in the war, because Vietnam simply did not want anyone else occupying their country. The Vietnamese were civilized, and could work out their problems alone, just like any other country. When France ruled, the Vietnamese were very much against having them in their country. The French claimed they were civilizing Vietnam, "...Despite the conviction of many Vietnamese that they were already civilized and indeed in possession of a civilization superior to anything the French had to offer" (Reading Packet). To Vietnam, the United States was simply another country coming in to try and change the way their country worked. The Vietnamese wanted only to be independent, and were proud of the government they had in place. As some other people mentioned before, the United States looked like the aggressors by trying to force their ideas of democracy onto Vietnam. Vietnam simply wanted to be left alone to run their country, and America should have let them do that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily in the sense that the United States were "simply another country coming in to try to change the way their country worked." Not only were the US trying to change the government, they were also destroying a lot of the country in the process. In the 3rd packet in a letter that Ho Chi Minh wrote to President Johnson he says, "Vietnam is thousands of miles away from the United States. The Vietnamese people have never done any harm to the United States…thousands of U.S. aircraft have dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs, destroying towns, villages, factories, roads, bridges, dykes, dams, and even churches pagodas, hospitals, schools." The United States, for really no good reason were destroying many of the beautiful aspects of Vietnam and that were used by everyday people. Instead of sitting back and looking at the destruction that they caused as the war progressed, the United States kept destroying a country in which the people just wanted them to leave. And as said in the quote, Vietnam really is thousands of miles away from America and have posed no threat to the Americans at all.
DeleteI agree with both of you guys in saying that the U.S. government should not have gotten involved with Vietnam because it did not need any help. Vietnam was purely fighting for its own freedom and did not need any other governments help in trying to get it. In one of the packets, President Lyndon B. Johnson says, “We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny”(Johns Hopkins Speech). The U.S. was fighting for something that Vietnam already had. It thought that it was helping Vietnam by getting involved. However, Vietnam did not need any help whatsoever. It knew exactly how it wanted to shape its own destiny. The U.S. failed to see what the Vietnamese actually wanted and what they were actually doing. There was really no benefit for either country if the U.S. got involved so it was just a waste of time, money, and lives. The U.S. should not have gotten involved in Vietnam because nobody asked or wanted America’s help.
DeleteThe weakness that I see in the United States argument as to why they felt they needed to become involved in Vietnam was what was called the "Domino" theory. In an address to Congress in 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, "the issue it the future of Southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us." As you mentioned before Margaret, Vietnam is quite removed from the US geographically and posed little threat physically as a fairly small and poor nation. The claim that Vietnam could single-handedly be the tipping point for the entire continent and eventually the world into communism was extreme and an exaggerated statement to get the US involved in Vietnam for more conceited and self-serving reasons that Emily originally mentioned. For this reason, the US should have refrained from becoming involved in Vietnam, because it was based on unsupported statements of the situation.
DeleteI agree with you Emily, and I also think that the US should not have gotten involved, because given the fighting history of the Vietnamese the US should have known that they could not win without taking terrible losses first. When the French occupied the Vietnamese they fought the first Indochina war to get rid of them. In the war the Vietnamese won the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The movie discusses the battle of Dien bien Phu and it states, “Over 50,000 Viet Minh troops scaled the surrounding hills many pulling massive artillery pieces behind them. When it came, the Viet Minh attack was overwhelming. The French airstrip and artillery positions were quickly destroyed,” (movie). This shows tremendous morale amongst the soldiers, if they were able to carry massive artillery up a mountain. Also, the fact the Viet Minh were able to get 50, 000 people to fight shows a strong support for the cause. Also, with the history of occupation that you talked about made the Vietnamese more eager to fight. With all of this it must have been clear to the US that they could not win against an army that would get everybody to fight with strong morale. The US should not have gotten involved for this reason.
DeleteIn the United States' involvement in Vietnam, the first major mistake they made was putting Ngo Dinh Diem in power. The US wanted to install a democracy, but did the exact opposite of that by putting Diem in power. Diem acted as a dictator, and the video we watched reflected that. The video stated that Diem, "Could not relate to the people, and was selfish and had no concern for the well being of the country." (Video). It made no sense for the U.S. to put someone like Diem in power, and the U.S. created turbulence in an otherwise peaceful country. The U.S. sparked the war against Vietnam when they put Diem in power. Vietnam was united as one country before the Geneva Accords split the nation along the 17th parallel. The majority of the people in South Vietnam supported North Vietnam, and wanted Diem out of power. The U.S. created this war by getting overly involved in Vietnam. The U.S. should never have tried to interfere in Vietnam, and putting Diem in power was the start of a "domino effect" (pun completely intended) that ultimately led to the Vietnam War.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jack that the U.S. government should never have put Diem into power. Along with the Vietnamese people despising him, Diem’s authoritative position created even more problems in the future. The Geneva Agreement of 1954 stated that there were supposed to be free elections in Vietnam. However, the U.S. government wanted to ensure that Diem stayed in power, and it was clear that was not going to happen if there were free elections in 1956. The U.S. government put off the election because they wanted to wait for Diem to become more popular among the citizens of Vietnam. While still in power, Diem proceeded to imprison much of his political opposition, causing the Viet Cong to rebel. As time went on, it was evident that there was not going to be an election any time soon. A passage in one of the reading packets states, “By 1963 our government was fed up with Diem, but still wasn’t willing to risk elections. Our CIA helped a group of Vietnamese generals overthrow Diem and kill him. Since then there have been a series of “better” military dictators” (Reading Packet). The actions of the US government reveal how corrupt it was. Instead of owning up to their mistakes, they continued to try and cover them up. This did not help their case of preventing Communism, as future dictators took power over Vietnam. In addition, it created more hatred between the Vietnamese people and the US government. Between breaking previous agreements and ruining the foundation of Vietnam’s government, the Vietnamese people had much more of a reason to fight than America had. Much like Jack stated, putting Diem into power created a different kind of “domino effect,” that further damaged relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree. I think that in the long run Vietnam and the United States would have been better with Ho Chi Minh in power. In the Anti-war handout in packet three it describes premier Diem. It says, “But the U.S government was certain that our man in Vietnam, premier Diem, would lose. So we decided not allow any more elections until we were sure we would win. Diem set up a political police force, and put all political opposition – Communist and anti-Communist – in prison,” (packet 3). Diem is obviously not supporting democracy if he is imprisoning all of his opposition. So if the US’s goal was to support democracy. Then they are failing. The people would have much rather preferred Ho Chi Minh. This shows that if democracy were good for the United States then the United States would have been better with Ho Chi Minh. Also, the “communism” that the US feared would be so bad for the Vietnamese people was more like nationalism. Ho chi Minh wrote, "It was patriotism, not Communism, that inspired me," (movie). The people of Vietnam would have been better with the leader that they support, who was more patriotic than a Marxist revolutionary. Therefore, the US should not have gotten involved in Vietnam, and let Ho Chi Minh rule the nation.
DeleteI completely agree with the comment that Jack made about the US trying to instill democracy. The US was trying to follow and enforce its policy of containment in Vietnam. However, Vietnam did not want to be separated, and the US intervention split the nation. In respect to the idea of democracy, one of the readings said, “We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy,” (Kerry). Vietnam’s main focus was to reunite their nation after the French had been in power. After so many years of being oppressed, Vietnam wanted a government that would be just and represent its people. The distinction between democracy and communism was not important to most people. The Vietnamese citizens only cared for a government that would treat them justly. As Jack said above, the US putting Ngo Dinh Diem in power was a mistake. This created an even further rift between the North and South, which is exactly what Vietnam did not want to happen. Vietnam was trying to rebuild its nation after outside influence and oppression. The US intervention hindered that process because of their fear of communism.
DeleteJenny, I would also agree that the U.S. military did not pay attention to history and use the correct tactics. As you mentioned, the U.S. did not really consider what happened between the French and the Vietnamese and how the Vietnamese won. I also believe that the military should have used different tactics during the Vietnam War. The military was brutal and did not really have a clear plan on how to win the war. Even a lot of the veterans disagreed with how the war was fought. In one of the reading packets, John Kerry says, “we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command”(John Kerry). During the Vietnam War, it was incredibly common to commit war crimes on a daily basis. These were not useful tactics to win the war a lot of them like the My Lai Massacre involved hurting normal and unarmed citizens. Most of the Americans involved did not even agree with the crimes. Overall, the United States military did not have a plan on how to win the war because they did not pay attention to history and they used criminal tactics that the some of the soldiers did not even support. Without having a solid military plan, there is no possible way to win a war and if the U.S. was not going to win then there was no real reason to get involved.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should not have gotten involved in Vietnam because our "reasons for being there" were not supported by the actions of the government. President Johnson talked about the U.S. motivations for fighting the Vietname war. He said, "America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must honor our commitments...Our purpose is peace." (packet 3, Johnson) The U.S. directly defied the Geneva accords, which had stated that there was to be an election to determine what the government of Vietnam would be. They defied this agreement because they were aware that communism would win the vote and wanted to avoid that from happening. Johnson's statement is ridiculous given that the Geneva Accords was an agreement made in order to ensure peace. If the U.S. kept its word we wouldn't have defied the Geneva accords. Also, if the U.S. wanted peace we would have not initiated a war. Johnson's statements were not backed up by the actions of the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI think you touched on an important point early on, saying that the US was only fighting to "honor our commitments"(Johnson). The US frequently claimed that they were fighting because they had made a promise to banish communism from all governments and to combat it when it appeared, including Vietnam. Although as you mentioned, Johnson also said that "our purpose is peace." The US should have known that isn't worth upholding in certain situations, such as this one, when outside interference was clearly unwanted and violated previous claims of peace. A large reason for the US's motive to enter Vietnam as a military force was to follow up on a promise, which translated to not wanting to look weak for failing. Yet many speculate that allowing the small nation of Vietnam to stabilize their government independently would not have reflected on the US as weak but rather intelligent and more humble. The US became involved with Vietnam for the wrong reasons, and therefore should have avoided involvement altogether.
DeleteMaya, I agree with this idea that the United States' goal was supposedly to spread peace but in actuality they brought so much violence into the small country that there is little support for Johnson's claim. In the Vietnam Day Committee reading, the author addresses the unacknowledged cruelty that the US soldiers were ordered to conduct in order to "promote freedom." The writers of the reading wrote, "We believe that the entire war in Vietnam is criminal and immoral. We believe that the atrocities which are necessary to wage this war against the people of Vietnam are inexcusable." Without addressing specific examples of these atrocities, the writers' emphasizes their strong feelings toward the criminal activity that happened by the actions of the US military. Compared to your quote, Maya, where Johnson expresses his want of "a purpose of peace" the two ideas completely contradict each other. This demonstrates how the US failed at it's goal and thus should not have entered in the first place.
DeleteSimilarly, while President Johnson was addressing the Congress after the Gulf of Tonkin incident and speaking for why the U.S needs to send troops to Vietnam, he says "We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Vietnam." (last reading pg 75). Johnson said that America had made a promise to protect South Vietnam, however why did Johnson feel the need to protect South Vietnam now and follow the promise when America didn't help Vietnam when they asked for assistance against the French. America didn't help Vietnam before, but Johnson felt the need to fulfill the American "duty" to "assist" in Vietnam, even though the Vietnamese made it clear that they did not want American involvement. There was no need to go to war in Vietnam, in fact it hurt both nations (U.S and Vietnam) involved. It cost both nations many lives, lots of money, resources, and took an emotional toll. So I conclude, the U.S should not have gotten involved in Vietnam.
DeleteThe U.S. should not have gotten involved in Vietnam because our "reasons for being there" were not supported by the actions of the government. President Johnson talked about the U.S. motivations for fighting the Vietname war. He said, "America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must honor our commitments...Our purpose is peace." (packet 3, Johnson) The U.S. directly defied the Geneva accords, which had stated that there was to be an election to determine what the government of Vietnam would be. They defied this agreement because they were aware that communism would win the vote and wanted to avoid that from happening. Johnson's statement is ridiculous given that the Geneva Accords was an agreement made in order to ensure peace. If the U.S. kept its word we wouldn't have defied the Geneva accords. Also, if the U.S. wanted peace we would have not initiated a war. Johnson's statements were not backed up by the actions of the U.S.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else has said before me, I agree with the fact that the US should not have interfered in Vietnam. Neither side wanted the conflict, nor was there very little support from either side as well. Nonetheless, the US intervened in the Vietnamese affairs and sent troops over. While over in Vietnam, the troops could barely tell who was the Vietcong, and proceeded to commit serious war crimes. In a reading explaining the soldiers actions, it said, “…they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages…” (Kerry). The troops were unable to identify who was part of the Vietcong so, they took brutal actions against everyone. The ignorance and assumptions of the troops caused them to attack anyone who they suspected was a threat. Because of this, civilians were the highest in casualties. Not only was US intervention not wanted, it was feared by the Vietnamese people.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the US should have interfered in Vietnam. After the Gulf on Tonkin Incident, President Johnson gave a speech to Congress about why the US needs to get involved and send troops over to Vietnam. Johnson said, "Our objective is the independence of South Vietnam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves-only that the people of South Vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way." I found this particular statement very hypocritical, so much so that its funny. Johnson says he wants the people of South Vietnam to have the freedom to guide their country how they choose, yet the US was in Vietnam to force democracy on them. If Johnson was really concerned about the Vietnamese peoples' right to govern themselves how they choose, he would not have sent troops over to force democracy on the country. Also, he would not have put Deim into power. Also, Johnson talks about the South Vietnamese peoples' right to freedom of how to guide themselves, yet the US intervened when our 'assistance' was not wanted.
ReplyDeleteThe US should not have gotten involved in Vietnam because the Vietnamese did not want the United States there. The US thought they were helping free the Vietnamese when actually the Vietnamese want to fight their own war. The Vietnamese became increasingly more resistance which counteracted the US's goal to help the Vietnamese. A letter from President Ho Chi Minh to President Lyndon B. Johnson explained the damage that the United States was causing when writing, "The US Government has unleashed the war of aggression in Vietnam. The US Government must stop definitively and unconditionally its bombing raids and all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, withdraw from South Vietnam all US and satellite troops, recognize the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation, and let the Vietnamese people settle themselves their own affairs." Demonstrated by the President of Vietnam's requests, the United States barged into the situation in Vietnam unwanted and unneeded by the native government, military and citizens. The US should not have gotten involved because the Vietnamese wanted to fight their own fight and the US was causing more destruction than resolution.
ReplyDeletePaige, I agree with you and support your statement that "the US was causing more destruction than resolution." In the same letter from President Ho Chi Minh to President Johnson, Minh says "We love peace but we are not afraid of war. We are resolved to drive away the U.S aggressors and to defend the freedom, independence, and territorial integrity of our Fatherland." Vietnam saw the U.S as the aggressors, and made it clear that they were determined to get the U.S out of their country. The U.S government was clearly told that they were not wanted to be involved in the war, yet the U.S went against the will of the Vietnamese people and attacked the country. The US caused more destruction than resolution, like Paige said, and should not have been involved in the Vietnam.
DeleteThe US should not have gotten involved in the Vietnam War because they were in support of a corrupt government. The intent of joining the war was to combat communism, which was supposedly harmful. America wanted to spread democracy. However, this goal was not accomplished, as America’s solution was not one that could efficiently keep the government functioning. The Vietnam Day Committee wrote to American soldiers, “We are supposed to be fighting to protect democracy in Vietnam, and yet your own government admits that South Vietnam is run by a dictatorship”. America set up a democratic power in South Korea to combat the spread of Communism. While the US should not have this ability to control other governments, they did not even put a beneficial power in charge. The US should not have gotten involved because they were not supporting a side that could efficiently meet Vietnam’s needs.
ReplyDelete