The Vietnam War - The Economist

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Good article here (http://www.economist.com/node/21560841) from the Economist.

[MarxSchmarx]

I changed the title of this thread to be more reflective of the article. I do understand that in much of North American and French discourse, "Vietnam" refers almost invariably to an imperialist escapade, but for others reading this they might think the article is actually about the current situation in vietnam or the historical context of modern vietnam, where the French/Americans were just one more in a long, very long, line of foreign occupiers.

[islandmilitia]

Good article here (http://www.economist.com/node/21560841) from the Economist.

Actually, quite a poor article. In the guise of being a book review, it repeats a large part of the US narrative about the Vietnam War. In particular, by claiming that "Ho Chi Minh’s government in Hanoi would never accept anything short of reunification of the two Vietnamese states created by the [Geneva] conference", and that this "made the American war all but inevitable", the article fails to note that the Geneva Accords themselves actually required the unification of Vietnam by stipulating that elections across both southern and northern Vietnam would be held under international supervision within two years - and as historians now accept, it was largely due to the role of the US that those elections did not materialize, because the US recognized that free elections would have resulted in a sweeping victory for Ho.

[erupt]

I never knew the OSS made Ho Chi Minh an honorary member.

They really had a grasp of things in '46. :rolleyes:

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Actually, quite a poor article. In the guise of being a book review, it repeats a large part of the US narrative about the Vietnam War. In particular, by claiming that "Ho Chi Minh’s government in Hanoi would never accept anything short of reunification of the two Vietnamese states created by the [Geneva] conference", and that this "made the American war all but inevitable", the article fails to note that the Geneva Accords themselves actually required the unification of Vietnam by stipulating that elections across both southern and northern Vietnam would be held under international supervision within two years - and as historians now accept, it was largely due to the role of the US that those elections did not materialize, because the US recognized that free elections would have resulted in a sweeping victory for Ho.

...well, good article for the right wing capitalist press at least...

[Prometeo liberado]

Actually, quite a poor article. In the guise of being a book review, it repeats a large part of the US narrative about the Vietnam War. In particular, by claiming that "Ho Chi Minh’s government in Hanoi would never accept anything short of reunification of the two Vietnamese states created by the [Geneva] conference", and that this "made the American war all but inevitable", the article fails to note that the Geneva Accords themselves actually required the unification of Vietnam by stipulating that elections across both southern and northern Vietnam would be held under international supervision within two years - and as historians now accept, it was largely due to the role of the US that those elections did not materialize, because the US recognized that free elections would have resulted in a sweeping victory for Ho.

It's The Economist after all.

[#FF0000]

The Economists is usually p. good imo

[Prometeo liberado]

The Economists is usually p. good imo

I do like that they have no by-lines. But make no mistake that the editorial board's cosmology reeks of British classism.

[#FF0000]

Yeah that's not a surprise though.

[Bombay]

I was going to make a new thread about this but...

Could someone explain the basics of the Vietnam war for me? What were the reasons of the war and what did the US say the reasons were. I know Chomsky talks much about the war, is his view any good or do the marxists disagree with him? I'm going to do some research on the subject and it would be nice to understand the basics before that. :)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I was going to make a new thread about this but...

Could someone explain the basics of the Vietnam war for me? What were the reasons of the war and what did the US say the reasons were. I know Chomsky talks much about the war, is his view any good or do the marxists disagree with him? I'm going to do some research on the subject and it would be nice to understand the basics before that. :)

The US wanted to keep western control of the hundred year long colony of Vietnam. The people of Vietnam resisted, the US invaded and in the end over 4 Million humans were killed.

[RevoTO]

I try to read the economist when I can. It provides a honest ruling class perspective and is often quite refreshing. If your going to read a bourgeois magazine it should be this one.