myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (12/30/85)
> No. We know more than that. We know that Ho Chi Minh was > already a committed communist and that he betrayed people who > were stupid or unlucky enough to collaborate with him. > Those allegedly far-sighted advisors needed glasses badly. > > David Hudson Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter -- knee-jerk anti-communism. It strikes me as quite funny, tho, that one no longer hears sweeping condemnations of China in the US. I have four points to raise with respect to David's comments: (1) If the heightened state of militarization of Vietnam had not been necessary, it is likely that a much less centralized brand of communism would have resulted. It is also highly likely that the North and South would have been unified in the 1950's if the US had allowed the scheduled elections to take place then. How could such a situation POSSIBLY be worse for anybody than a Vietnam ravaged by war for twenty more years, with consequent millions of dead and vast economic devastation? (2) A guerrilla war can ONLY be won with the support of the people of a country...this support was displayed in both North and South from the 1940's on. In the early stages the support of the peasantry was achieved thru land redistribution (hence the progressive nature of the movement, at least in the EARLY STAGES). (3) Someone else brought up the refugee situation before and after the war. I'll need to look into this, but my guess is that, during the war, refugees were maintained internal to the country thru relocation schemes similar to those being used in today's Guatemala. It wouldn't have done to have had refugees streaming from the South (besides, would the US have taken them then?). Another factor would probably be that those against the South Vietnamese government stayed to fight rather than leave, while that was not an option for those against the unified communist government. Anyway, this is something that bears looking into. (4) The fourth point is a question for David. What collaborationists are you referring to who were betrayed by Ho Chi Minh? -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@rsch.wisc.edu UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,topaz,akgua,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at WISCMACC
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/03/86)
In article <1864@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >> No. We know more than that. We know that Ho Chi Minh was >> already a committed communist and that he betrayed people who >> were stupid or unlucky enough to collaborate with him. >> Those allegedly far-sighted advisors needed glasses badly. > >Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter -- knee-jerk anti-communism. This is knee-jerk anti-communism, but it isn't the heart of the matter. How about a response to my point: why don't know what Ho Chi Minh would have built without American and French opposition, but we do know what he actually built. Speculation about what would have happened otherwise is just that: pure speculation. George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers faced comparable opposition in setting up the United States. (The war lasted six years instead of thirty.) They did a much better job of setting up a decent government -- and they didn't have any other successful models to emulate. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108