Vietnam -- was it in the interests of the US imperialists?

[David Warner]

A fairly basic (but not obvious) question -- was the Vietnam War in the interests of the US Imperialists?

It seems to me that it was and was not, though I'm more inclined towards the latter.

People who claim that it was usually argue that it did achieve one of the objectives -- "stopping the spread of communism in Asia" (you know, the domino theory, etc.)

One the other hand it clearly failed to achieve the ultimate objective -- restoration of capitalism in Vietnam, turning Vietnam into a US neo-colony and dividing it into two. Moreover, it weakened US imperialism considerably.

Your thoughts?

Edit: To clarify, the question is Not whether you personally think the Vietnam war was bad.

[piet11111]

Well the USA went in not knowing how it would end so.... With 20/20 hindsight it was a bad idea but so was almost everything the USA has done.

[David Warner]

But what message would the communist parties in other neighboring Asian states (such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.) have gotten if the US didn't invade? Wouldn't that be kind of a "green light" saying "it's ok if you seize power.. we'll do nothing"?

(I'm not saying that it would be. Just curious.)

Similarly, what would this have meant for the USSR and PRC? Wouldn't they take this as weakness on the part of US and increase their support for other such parties or movements?

[Zhi]

Yes because the U.S. Wanted new markets to emerge which would serve the demands of domestic consumers, and clearly a socialist state was antithetical to this. And then no in some respect, as Vietnam and most of Indo-China was still very primitive in terms of economic progression.

[Sixiang]

It was most certainly in the U.S.'s interests as the major imperialist power to be involved in the war, but the results were most certainly not in the U.S.'s interests. Just because the U.S. government responded to the war's outcome by spinning it to make it seem like something good came out of it doesn't mean that it was in the U.S. imperialists' interests. It just means that the imperialists are trying to save face.

And I don't see how the war stopped the spread of communism in Asia. Laos and Cambodia also came under communist party rule and communist parties have been going strong in the Philippines and all other South Asia.

[Dionysius]

To me the US doesn't wage wars to win them, but to merely continue the flow of capital to the military industrial complex. Another factor was the fear of a youth uprising of baby boomers so a culling of the herd was intended. Less young men who could potentially overthrow the empire and more money to the war machine, that's a win win for the US Imperialists.

[RedMaterialist]

A fairly basic (but not obvious) question -- was the Vietnam War in the interests of the US Imperialists?

It seems to me that it was and was not, though I'm more inclined towards the latter.

People who claim that it was usually argue that it did achieve one of the objectives -- "stopping the spread of communism in Asia" (you know, the domino theory, etc.)

One the other hand it clearly failed to achieve the ultimate objective -- restoration of capitalism in Vietnam, turning Vietnam into a US neo-colony and dividing it into two. Moreover, it weakened US imperialism considerably.

Your thoughts?

Edit: To clarify, the question is Not whether you personally think the Vietnam war was bad.

The immediate goal of the Vietnam (or the American War, as the Vietnamese call it) War was to prevent communism from winning in South Vietnam. In that, the U.S. failed (in my view an example of a socialist success.)

But the U.S. had another goal: To show the working class of the world the barbaric cruelty it would be subject to if it tried to defy U.S. imperialism. That objective may have been achieved, esp. in Central and South America.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

if it wasnt an imperialist war, what was it?

[Sixiang]

But the U.S. had another goal: To show the working class of the world the barbaric cruelty it would be subject to if it tried to defy U.S. imperialism. That objective may have been achieved, esp. in Central and South America.

I would agree with this for sure. The U.S. dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all of the bombs dropped in the European and Pacific theaters in the entirety of World War II. When you factor in all of the bombs also dropped by the U.S. on Laos and Cambodia, you get an insane number that killed millions of people: soldiers and civilians. The U.S.'s actions in mainland Southeast Asia showed that there is nothing ethical or righteous about capitalism or imperialism, as if the world even needed to be shown this in the 1970s. A system that could cause so much wanton destruction has no system of morality that prevents it from doing bad things. It is completely and utterly utilitarian. Anything that challenges its hegemony is to be destroyed by any means possible in their minds.

[RedMaterialist]

if it wasnt an imperialist war, what was it?

A war to defeat a socialist government (much the same as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.) The French war in Indo-China was the last imperialist war in Southeast Asia.

[RedMaterialist]

To me the US doesn't wage wars to win them, but to merely continue the flow of capital to the military industrial complex. Another factor was the fear of a youth uprising of baby boomers so a culling of the herd was intended. Less young men who could potentially overthrow the empire and more money to the war machine, that's a win win for the US Imperialists.

It wasn't the baby boomers who went to Vietnam, but the working class youth. By the time the boomers could be drafted the war was mostly over. The split between the college crowd and the working class is still with us.

[Dionysius]

It wasn't the baby boomers who went to Vietnam, but the working class youth. By the time the boomers could be drafted the war was mostly over. The split between the college crowd and the working class is still with us.

I do agree it was the working poor and middle class that was sent, but they were baby boomers. The Gulf of Tonkin was in '64. The baby boomer generation started after WWII. So someone born in '46 would be 18 in '64.

[o well this is ok I guess]

lol this thread is basically "is losing a war bad" but everyones talking as if there has to be super secret secondary objectives
like is reactionary defeatism a thing? Do american statesmen read mirror-lenin?

[RedMaterialist]

I do agree it was the working poor and middle class that was sent, but they were baby boomers. The Gulf of Tonkin was in '64. The baby boomer generation started after WWII. So someone born in '46 would be 18 in '64.

The baby boomers were born at the same time as the working class. But they aren't the same class. The Clintons were baby boomers. The Joe the Plumbers might have been born at the same time as them, but the two classes are entirely antagonistic.

Also, even the middle class was not drafted until the late 60s when the college draft deferments ended and they started showing up in Vietnam. By 1970 or so, Nixon had reduced the troop numbers by about half and fighting by the U.S. was limited. The big student protests were happening around then.

For an entire generation the working class never forgave the boomers for abandoning them from 1964-68 in Vietnam. That, and race, are the reasons working class whites now vote Republican.

The boomers were interested in only one thing: saving their own asses.

[Dionysius]

The baby boomers were born at the same time as the working class. But they aren't the same class. The Clintons were baby boomers. The Joe the Plumbers might have been born at the same time as them, but the two classes are entirely antagonistic.

Also, even the middle class was not drafted until the late 60s when the college draft deferments ended and they started showing up in Vietnam. By 1970 or so, Nixon had reduced the troop numbers by about half and fighting by the U.S. was limited. The big student protests were happening around then.

For an entire generation the working class never forgave the boomers for abandoning them from 1964-68 in Vietnam. That, and race, are the reasons working class whites now vote Republican.

The boomers were interested in only one thing: saving their own asses.

To my understanding, the boomers is a reference to the boom in population after the war. That would include everyone born from 46 to 64.

[Rafiq]

Retrospectively who knows, but more importantly yes it was.

[Edel]

Well I would blame Harry Truman's foreign policy. If Franklin roosevelt manage to live longer than in his death in April 1945, I doubt there will be vietnam war.
Read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence in 1945,
It had strong american influence obviously and their mistake was to simply support french imperialism.

[Sixiang]

Well I would blame Harry Truman's foreign policy. If Franklin roosevelt manage to live longer than in his death in April 1945, I doubt there will be vietnam war.
Read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence in 1945,
It had strong american influence obviously and their mistake was to simply support french imperialism.

You assume that the leaders of the strongest imperialist power in the world are more motivated by lofty ideals of democracy and freedom from colonization than they are about preserving the imperialist system. Even bourgeois analysts of diplomacy will tell you that the U.S. government's foreign policy is and has been based on preserving the interests of the U.S.'s ruling elite. The U.S. has repeatedly supported anti-democratic dictatorial regimes and European colonialism because they served the U.S.'s own strategic interests. This is quite simple. The U.S. tended to support European colonialism after World War II because to do otherwise would put oftentimes anti-U.S. parties into power. Many times anti-colonial forces were also planning on nationalizing their industries to better serve their own national populations instead of throwing everything out to support the U.S.'s imperialist economy.

[TheLonelyCommunist]

The USA did the treat Vietnam as it's own area, where they enforced laws, had influence in the government, etc. So yes

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A war to defeat a socialist government (much the same as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.) The French war in Indo-China was the last imperialist war in Southeast Asia.

why did they want to defeat a socialist government? strictly ideological grounds? humanitarian beliefs?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The US had interests in Vietnam as part of it's larger effort to keep the threat of socialism contained. The theory was that if socialist forces prevailed, the contagion would spread throughout southeast Asia, into Thailand, Malaysia and possibly as far as India. Ultimately these beliefs were founded on some pretty big misunderstandings of what actually was happening (ie that the uprising was primarily a nationalist anti-colonial struggle, not some kind of region-wide communist insurrection) but that was the belief as people like McNamara have described it.

It was part of a larger effort to stomp out perceived USSR-aligned interests wherever they happened to emerge.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

yes. cuz of hegemonic imperialist capitalism. isnt that obvious? what am i missing?

[RedMaterialist]

why did they want to defeat a socialist government? strictly ideological grounds? humanitarian beliefs?

I would say ideological and economic. The leading capitalist power in the world would, it seems to me, have an overriding interest in defeating any socialist government.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

you still havent proposed an alternative theory to the imperialism narrative. do you have one?

[John Nada]

why did they want to defeat a socialist government? strictly ideological grounds? humanitarian beliefs?

Humanitarian beliefs?:lol: No.

The US would've had a forward operating base and colony right by China, a rival power and potentially very large market.

[PhoenixAsh]

I voted no and yes.

Aside from the fact that the Vietnam war was rather a mixture of complex issues...if we generalize heavilly I think what I will come out on is the following :

While it was definately in the interests of the capitalist class the effort was imo more directly aimed at protecting the economic growth markets of Japan, Taiwan and South-Korea and the US interests there rather than their direct interests in Vietnam itself which were at the time rather limited.

We can't ignore the USSR aspitrations in Vietnam and their conflicting interests with China however and the strategic importance of balancing these two powers against each other for the protection of interests in Taiwan, Korea and Japan (again). US interest in Vietnam was more politically strategic.

The way in which the war was fought indicates other concerns rather than a direct imperialist victory in Vietnam were prevailing. It also made visible the division between sections of the bourgeois in the US and their diverging interests.

[Illegalitarian]

I think the better question is, what was the purpose of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? With Vietnam it's obvious, (domino effect etc), but I'm still confused as to what the motivation for these wars was.

The war in Indochina was to protect the interests of US capital. With the Geneva Accords thrown to the wind with the rise of Diem, to ensure that no vote to reunify the nations would ever take place, which would have definitely allowed ol' Bac Ho to rule over a unified communist Vietnam, the US had high hopes of capital and political expansion in South East Asia, with a decent stronghold in both Cambodia and Laos, having the corrupt royalty of both nations effectively in their back pockets.


The short lived puppet state of South Vietnam started to crumble rather quickly, however, and the west had to act quickly, being fully aware that both China and Russia's influenced in the region would expand rapidly if it was displaced entirely.


I don't think PA is wrong, I just think that protecting the interests of Japanese and Korean markets was a part of that imperialism.



There's also the fact that KMT remnants and other anti-communist nationalist groups were operating in the jungles of Laos, producing and trafficking large amounts of drugs under the watchful eye of the CIA, all the while being supplied with arms and money, since the US had yet to give up on the dream of a successful Chiang Kai-Shek lead nationalist rebellion against the communists. Losing that wasn't something the US wanted to happen, but alas.:)

[Dean]

The goal was to destroy South Vietnam to weaken the regional and imperial influence of the (North-based) pro-Soviet state of Vietnam. It succeeded.

Today Vietnam is s strong trade partner and plenty of resources are being sent to the US. Quite a success story. More of a success than the Middle Eastern graveyard states, whose production is down and are now being bounced between Saudi Arabia and Iran.