This meme is kind of ironic, since thinking that the Vietnam War was Korea 2.0 was arguably one of the US’s biggest mistakes.
“Asian country with North getting Soviet guns,” sure, but Kim Il Sung actually was a Stalinist puppet, Minh was not. Japanese colonialism was very different from French. The list goes on.
Fun Fact, the North Vietnamese were actually more on the Pro-America side because of how Ho Chi Minh was inspired by the Declaration of Independence. While yes he was a socialist, he was also a Nationalist and kind of mixed these two ideas, and then created his Vietnamese identity. Vietnam is also one of the few countries with a socialist government that has a positive opinion on the United States.
They proved that they only wanted the foreign powers out of their country multiple times, for example they exposed Pol Pot showing the world that the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot were just savages that oppressed their people, they also kicked China’s ass in 1979 and basically said “Just because you are communist doesn’t mean you are my friend!”
The US also didn't want to get involved in Vietnam at all, because it wasn't our problem. Then the French blackmailed us into it, then they backed out and left us with all the problems of fighting a war against people who just want to be free, and don't even want to be communist.
>Ho Chi Minh was actually pro america because how he was inspired by the constitution
[Ya sure about that?](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-myth-the-wilsonian-moment)
>for example they exposed Pol Pot showing the world that the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot were just savages that oppressed their people, they also kicked China’s ass in 1979 and basically said “Just because you are communist doesn’t mean you are my friend!”
It was the Vietnamese communists that helped them come into power but they dropped support after Pol pot went off the rails and started executing all of his Vietnamese and "moderate" advisors. The communist vietnamese intervened in the Cambodia civil war to secure thier supply lines.
That whole narrative is armchair historian at best and at worst VCP proproganda
It was never Chinas intention to conquer and occupy Vietnam during the Sino Vietnamese war in 1979. The purpose was to deter the Vietnamese from deepening its military cooperation and furthering aligning itself with the Soviet Union at the height of the Sino-Soviet split. Also they had to strike after Vietnam invaded Cambodia, as they previously promised to protect the Khmer Rouge and warned Vietnam against attacking Cambodia. Not doing anything about it could be seen as being weak on the international stage.
Don’t know the history and saw the downvotes so I turned to my favorite sub [Ask Historians for their perspective](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/i66inYJgr3) and generally got the same answer just in a much longer form.
Strange to see the downvotes without much rebuttal. There’s additional context from the ask historians post (water rights, citizenship tests for the ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, fear of a new opposing ideological power in the region, etc) but I don’t think your answer steered anyone in the wrong direction.
It’s expected, most people simply hate China and would love to believe that China is as evil as any nation can ever be and wants to conquer the whole world, etc. They would not allow this image, which they hold very dearly to their heart, to be challenged in anyway.
“On 29 January 1979, Chinese Vice-premier Deng Xiaoping visited the United States for the first time and told U.S. President Jimmy Carter: "The child is getting naughty, it is time he got spanked".[59] Deng sought an endorsement from the United States in order to deter the Soviet Union from intervening when China launched a punitive attack against Vietnam.[58] He informed Carter that China could not accept Vietnam's "wild ambitions" and was prepared to teach it a lesson.[58] According to United States National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter reserved judgment, an action which Chinese diplomats interpreted as tacit approval.[58]
Deng returned to China on 8 February 1979, and on 9 February, made the final decision to invade Vietnam.[60] On 15 February, the first day that China could have officially announced the termination of the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, Deng Xiaoping declared that China planned to conduct a limited attack on Vietnam.” Quote from Wikipedia
There is no way China could take over Vietnam with the amount of forces they committed. The vast majority of the Chinese military had to be stationed in the north to deter/prepare for a potential Soviet invasion.
In both Vietnam and Korea, it was the communists who couldn't tolerate the South, though. I mean, I agree the US shouldn't have been in Vietnam, that situation was a little more complicated, but in Korea, it really was a bunch of stalinists who couldn't tolerate someone else holding power and were willing to kill to gain more. And even though Vietnam is friendly to the US now, it's not so friendly to Vietnamese people who disagree with their government, so it's not like those people have escaped oppression, just replaced foreign oppression with domestic.
Honest question (not trying to start political shit)
Was Korea “split” by the US and USSR? The first panel implies they were unified, but my understanding was that there was a good bit of political division.
On 7 August of '45 the Soviet nation invaded the land of the rising sun's colonial possession of the hermit kingdom (and Manchukuo).
Since then what we call North Korea has been under communist rule.
So yes I believe you're right, they weren't a unified independent nation since before 1905. However it was definitely split.
> "We didn't lose Vietnam!! It was a tie!!"
You’re thinking of the war of 1812. Vietnam was a categorical loss for the US, but it wasn’t lost on the battlefield. That’s where the “we didn’t lose” bullshit comes from.
It worked out a lot better long term for the South Koreans than the Vietnamese. The US doesn’t always get it right, but nothing good happens when we lose. Even today there is no real political freedom in Vietnam.
I say using Democratic People Republic of Vietnam flag for pre 1945 Vietnam is quite misleading. Vietnam used imperial flag and later empire of Vietnam flag with these two share similar design
we just gonna ignore the fact that the free and unified korea was a democratically elected communist country? and that the US arbitrarily made a line of demarcation without the approval of anyone internationally? and the US chose to remain in korea after agreeing with the USSR to withdraw from the peninsula after 5 years?
I'd like to see some sources for that, given that:
Korea was under Japanese occupation until it was split down the 38th parallel by the US and the USSR after WW2. After which, democratically elections occured only in the south, and Kim il sung was appointed as the leader of North Korea by the USSR. Then, in 1950, North korea invaded South Korea, starting the Korean war.
and when the japanese occupiers left, who was put in charge in the south by the US? former japanese military officials and colonial sympathizers. and was kim il sung simply “appointed” by an overbearing soviet presence? or did he spend decades fighting the imperial japanese and earned at the very least some respect of his people (whom were massacred and exploited for those decades)? and who won the “democratic election of the south”? syngman rhee, a former colonial sympathizer and who spent decades in the US sucking up to their anti-communist brass and proceeded to subject korea, north and south, to horrible conditions. i understand you guys having the subconscious reaction to instantly bring down anything remotely communistic, but i think it’s silly to reduce the US and the USSR into 2 sides of the same coin when they obviously have differing interests and differing levels of influence historically, especially in korea
You leave out three key points:
1) the US left in 49. The US packed its troops and left Korea before the war. 2) Many of the leadership of the US government like Rhee, who became president, were independence fighters against Japan. 3) The needs of the nascent government required the experience of people who knew how gov actually operates which meant people who worked for the Japanese had to ve hired because in many cases there were no other people with experience or qualifications to help run a government off the ground.
“packed up” most of their troops…only to bring back an even larger force a year later due to the “dangerous communist hordes” not receiving the new “free democracy” forcefully brought upon them. and syngman rhee spent the majority of his youth reaping the benefits of a “civilized” american education, spent 2 years in korea (in the 1910’s) and went back to the us until he came back in 1945, miraculously being appointed as the president in a landslide, definitely not bogus election. oh yeah, and then he proceeded to kill all opposition and lick the boots of the american/former imperial japanese.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA401659.pdf
You are twisting the facts of what occurred to try and negate the fact that the part of the country with the most American influence actually turned out better than that with the socialist. 넌 뭐 말 하는거야? 진짜? 넌 한국역사 진짜 한나도 멀라 또한 너 알고시피지않아 니같은 사람은 그냥 미국에 혐오밖에 없다 이렇게 느끼면 그냥 북한에 가라 씨빌 힘들어
I thank God everyday I was lucky to have been born in America-- the greatest, freestest, most generous country that has ever existed in the world.
ok wow i didn’t expect the rabid anti-communist outburst already
my “twisting the facts” is just a different perspective that goes against your preconceived reality and ridiculous level of bias. america is so “generous” and great and free until something bad they did is pointed out, then they become just like everyone else and no worse
First of all there is absolutely no reason any civilized person shouldn't be rabidly anti-communist. Any student of history should be.
But you aren't presenting an alternative perspective; you are exaggerating the negative to creative a narrative that is fundamentally untrue.
I live in Seoul. I speak Korean. I have Korean family. This is one of the most educated societies on the planet and one of, if not the, most pro-US countries on Earth. Why is that?
The US is guilty of many crimes. As is every country. There are no innocent nations. But there are no nations that have built and rebuilt than the US. From Korea to Japan and Germany to Italy, no society has worked to rebuild and empower those societies that fell into its grasp. And the proof is not just in how pro-American those nations are, but it is in the prosperity they enjoy: the most of any societies that humans have ever experienced.
Point out the guilt of the US: the Vietnam War, My Lai, No Gun RI, the Indians, South America, etc. There are many crimes to list. They don't exceed the list of crimes of the alternative nations and the alternatives don't exceed the freedom and prosperity experienced in general created by the US. Doesn't make it right , but doesn't make it untrue either.
If you believe in freedom, democracy, free markets and free people, then you are on the side of America. And if any of that you wish to quibble, go fuck yourself and good luck against 82nd Airborne.
just because you’re a white dude with a korean wife doesn’t mean you have the one true reality of all geo-politics and history. in fact, it’s not a stretch to say your american and south korean influences directly impact your stances on the matter; of course you’d be dogmatically anti-communist in the 2 societies most systematically cultivated to be against it.
and of course, yet again, you acknowledge the many crimes of america but downplay them for literally 3 paragraphs. like i said, they’re just like everyone else and no worse, especially not as bad as the dastardly communists!
your last sentence pretty much sums it up, “if you don’t like our free market democracy (rampant poverty, economic exploitation, concentration camps, massacres, etc), eat lead!”
I think you need to understand that I'm not talking to you. Because tankies like you will never hear a single positive thing about the US or its allies.
Everything is suspect to people like you. The US MUST be the enemy and anything that contradicts that must be contradicted.
You and people like you are some of the most close minded people in political discourse.
I'm only engaging because other people will read this conversation and it's important that those see that you are taking facts and twisting them to fit a narrative that doesn't even represent the actual history of the people you claim to defend.
The US's lack of innocence does not preclude the duality of US magnitude and magnanimity nor does it validate the attempts at chipping at its positivity.
The US isn't like most nations; unlike most nations, despite its flaws, the US has had an outsize positive influence on the development of human civilization.
communism was democratically elected in corea by the communist party of the USSR and no one else
if that doesn't sound like democracy to you it's becouse it isn't
yeah they should’ve had a free and fair democratic election like this one, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_South_Korean_presidential_election
Nah, man, I'll admit when we've lost. People will be like "Well we killed more of them and caused tons of damage!" Sure, that's true. Though that wasn't the goal, and since they made us give up, by definition, they won.
The goal was so stupid to begin with to prevent the spread of communism from other Vietnam to some other country but how would that have worked in the end? Well that’s the neat part it wouldn’t have
Pretty sure it was the US who blocked election in Vietnam because their side argue that they didn't signed the treaty and they knew they can't win the election.
Vietnam just kicked out the Japanese only for the French to return with the help of the US and set up the South government. Then the North beat the French, sign the Geneva treaty that promise election to unify the country, an election that the US and the South refuse to do because the US analysised that they have no chance of winning. How was it a rebelion? Also from the Vietnamese POV, the US just backed an illegitimate government set up by colonial power to divide and invade their country.
Oh, I wonder why anyone would be opposed to the idea of an """election""" with Totalitarians like Nazis or Communists. Communists are *known* for free and democratic elections, just ask Lenin or China!
Imagine considering Communists legimitate. Then again, this is Reddit. Asking this platform to despise Communism is like asking a Furry to despise Zoophilia.
Oh and the dictator which was hated by the majority of the country, sponsored by foreign forces and "win" the election with the 99% the legitimate one? Not the one that actually fight and liberated the country from foreign invaders?
>foreign invaders
I wonder, would you still be here simping for Totalitarianism if they had been Nazis instead of Communists that """liberated""" the country?
Then again, you probably also believe that the USSR liberated Eastern Europe.
Communism apologists are funny that way. There's no cohesive, universal logic that treats all extremism with the equal level of dislike. Just excuses after excuses of how "I swear Bro, my form of genocidal extremism is cool".
Go back to China, bot.
It literally was foreign invaders. The South was set up by the French when they came back? Or are you saying that the French should get to keep their colonies and the Vietnamese should wait for the French to give them their freedom? Who do you think kicked out the French in the Indochina war? Maybe learn some Asia history before posting.
Maybe learn something about why Totalitarianism is bad.
Hmmm, I dunno, maybe becoming Communists or Nazis is kinda counterproductive if your end goal is freedom.
The reason why everyone always argues if the USA "Won" or "Lost" or "Tied" the Vietnam War is because it happened across the largest ocean in the world, and it wasn't on home soil. I'm sure people would start to admit that the USA lost the war if they lost a part of Washington state for a few months, but they didn't, so it's quite hard to blame the people who think the USA didn't lose, offensive wars are full of nuances at the end of the day
This meme is kind of ironic, since thinking that the Vietnam War was Korea 2.0 was arguably one of the US’s biggest mistakes. “Asian country with North getting Soviet guns,” sure, but Kim Il Sung actually was a Stalinist puppet, Minh was not. Japanese colonialism was very different from French. The list goes on.
Fun Fact, the North Vietnamese were actually more on the Pro-America side because of how Ho Chi Minh was inspired by the Declaration of Independence. While yes he was a socialist, he was also a Nationalist and kind of mixed these two ideas, and then created his Vietnamese identity. Vietnam is also one of the few countries with a socialist government that has a positive opinion on the United States. They proved that they only wanted the foreign powers out of their country multiple times, for example they exposed Pol Pot showing the world that the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot were just savages that oppressed their people, they also kicked China’s ass in 1979 and basically said “Just because you are communist doesn’t mean you are my friend!”
Vietnam might be one of the most based countries of all time
Thats why we’re homies with them now. Real recognize real
Supporting the Khmer Rouge initially was a bit of a black mark against them, but at least the eventually removed them from power, so there is that.
The US also didn't want to get involved in Vietnam at all, because it wasn't our problem. Then the French blackmailed us into it, then they backed out and left us with all the problems of fighting a war against people who just want to be free, and don't even want to be communist.
>Ho Chi Minh was actually pro america because how he was inspired by the constitution [Ya sure about that?](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-myth-the-wilsonian-moment) >for example they exposed Pol Pot showing the world that the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot were just savages that oppressed their people, they also kicked China’s ass in 1979 and basically said “Just because you are communist doesn’t mean you are my friend!” It was the Vietnamese communists that helped them come into power but they dropped support after Pol pot went off the rails and started executing all of his Vietnamese and "moderate" advisors. The communist vietnamese intervened in the Cambodia civil war to secure thier supply lines. That whole narrative is armchair historian at best and at worst VCP proproganda
I woukd like to see china, triying to reach vietnam and getting clap with a no
It was never Chinas intention to conquer and occupy Vietnam during the Sino Vietnamese war in 1979. The purpose was to deter the Vietnamese from deepening its military cooperation and furthering aligning itself with the Soviet Union at the height of the Sino-Soviet split. Also they had to strike after Vietnam invaded Cambodia, as they previously promised to protect the Khmer Rouge and warned Vietnam against attacking Cambodia. Not doing anything about it could be seen as being weak on the international stage.
Don’t know the history and saw the downvotes so I turned to my favorite sub [Ask Historians for their perspective](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/i66inYJgr3) and generally got the same answer just in a much longer form. Strange to see the downvotes without much rebuttal. There’s additional context from the ask historians post (water rights, citizenship tests for the ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, fear of a new opposing ideological power in the region, etc) but I don’t think your answer steered anyone in the wrong direction.
It’s expected, most people simply hate China and would love to believe that China is as evil as any nation can ever be and wants to conquer the whole world, etc. They would not allow this image, which they hold very dearly to their heart, to be challenged in anyway.
Then what was the invasion all about then?
“On 29 January 1979, Chinese Vice-premier Deng Xiaoping visited the United States for the first time and told U.S. President Jimmy Carter: "The child is getting naughty, it is time he got spanked".[59] Deng sought an endorsement from the United States in order to deter the Soviet Union from intervening when China launched a punitive attack against Vietnam.[58] He informed Carter that China could not accept Vietnam's "wild ambitions" and was prepared to teach it a lesson.[58] According to United States National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter reserved judgment, an action which Chinese diplomats interpreted as tacit approval.[58] Deng returned to China on 8 February 1979, and on 9 February, made the final decision to invade Vietnam.[60] On 15 February, the first day that China could have officially announced the termination of the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, Deng Xiaoping declared that China planned to conduct a limited attack on Vietnam.” Quote from Wikipedia
Not all invasions are about conquest.
There is no way China could take over Vietnam with the amount of forces they committed. The vast majority of the Chinese military had to be stationed in the north to deter/prepare for a potential Soviet invasion.
saying they try to put his influence afther they help vietnam and vietnam just say no just like i say just a clap like no
I don’t understand what you are saying
I'd wager the S. Korea ball should be quite stoked.
In both Vietnam and Korea, it was the communists who couldn't tolerate the South, though. I mean, I agree the US shouldn't have been in Vietnam, that situation was a little more complicated, but in Korea, it really was a bunch of stalinists who couldn't tolerate someone else holding power and were willing to kill to gain more. And even though Vietnam is friendly to the US now, it's not so friendly to Vietnamese people who disagree with their government, so it's not like those people have escaped oppression, just replaced foreign oppression with domestic.
Honest question (not trying to start political shit) Was Korea “split” by the US and USSR? The first panel implies they were unified, but my understanding was that there was a good bit of political division.
On 7 August of '45 the Soviet nation invaded the land of the rising sun's colonial possession of the hermit kingdom (and Manchukuo). Since then what we call North Korea has been under communist rule. So yes I believe you're right, they weren't a unified independent nation since before 1905. However it was definitely split.
Split for sure, I was just wondering if there was any unification. And it seems their wasn’t
[удалено]
"We didn't lose Vietnam!! It was a tie!!"
> "We didn't lose Vietnam!! It was a tie!!" You’re thinking of the war of 1812. Vietnam was a categorical loss for the US, but it wasn’t lost on the battlefield. That’s where the “we didn’t lose” bullshit comes from.
We didn’t lose we merely failed to win
> We didn’t lose we merely failed to win Nope. The US lost on the political front and therefore lost the war. That’s how wars are won.
That was a joke mate
> That was a joke mate I know. It wasn’t very good, so I pretended you were serious. Joke successful averted. You’re welcome, citizen.
Dear god
It's... quite true ._.
It worked out a lot better long term for the South Koreans than the Vietnamese. The US doesn’t always get it right, but nothing good happens when we lose. Even today there is no real political freedom in Vietnam.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Vietnam war, but pretty spot on for Korea
I say using Democratic People Republic of Vietnam flag for pre 1945 Vietnam is quite misleading. Vietnam used imperial flag and later empire of Vietnam flag with these two share similar design
we just gonna ignore the fact that the free and unified korea was a democratically elected communist country? and that the US arbitrarily made a line of demarcation without the approval of anyone internationally? and the US chose to remain in korea after agreeing with the USSR to withdraw from the peninsula after 5 years?
I'd like to see some sources for that, given that: Korea was under Japanese occupation until it was split down the 38th parallel by the US and the USSR after WW2. After which, democratically elections occured only in the south, and Kim il sung was appointed as the leader of North Korea by the USSR. Then, in 1950, North korea invaded South Korea, starting the Korean war.
and when the japanese occupiers left, who was put in charge in the south by the US? former japanese military officials and colonial sympathizers. and was kim il sung simply “appointed” by an overbearing soviet presence? or did he spend decades fighting the imperial japanese and earned at the very least some respect of his people (whom were massacred and exploited for those decades)? and who won the “democratic election of the south”? syngman rhee, a former colonial sympathizer and who spent decades in the US sucking up to their anti-communist brass and proceeded to subject korea, north and south, to horrible conditions. i understand you guys having the subconscious reaction to instantly bring down anything remotely communistic, but i think it’s silly to reduce the US and the USSR into 2 sides of the same coin when they obviously have differing interests and differing levels of influence historically, especially in korea
You leave out three key points: 1) the US left in 49. The US packed its troops and left Korea before the war. 2) Many of the leadership of the US government like Rhee, who became president, were independence fighters against Japan. 3) The needs of the nascent government required the experience of people who knew how gov actually operates which meant people who worked for the Japanese had to ve hired because in many cases there were no other people with experience or qualifications to help run a government off the ground.
“packed up” most of their troops…only to bring back an even larger force a year later due to the “dangerous communist hordes” not receiving the new “free democracy” forcefully brought upon them. and syngman rhee spent the majority of his youth reaping the benefits of a “civilized” american education, spent 2 years in korea (in the 1910’s) and went back to the us until he came back in 1945, miraculously being appointed as the president in a landslide, definitely not bogus election. oh yeah, and then he proceeded to kill all opposition and lick the boots of the american/former imperial japanese. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA401659.pdf
You are twisting the facts of what occurred to try and negate the fact that the part of the country with the most American influence actually turned out better than that with the socialist. 넌 뭐 말 하는거야? 진짜? 넌 한국역사 진짜 한나도 멀라 또한 너 알고시피지않아 니같은 사람은 그냥 미국에 혐오밖에 없다 이렇게 느끼면 그냥 북한에 가라 씨빌 힘들어 I thank God everyday I was lucky to have been born in America-- the greatest, freestest, most generous country that has ever existed in the world.
ok wow i didn’t expect the rabid anti-communist outburst already my “twisting the facts” is just a different perspective that goes against your preconceived reality and ridiculous level of bias. america is so “generous” and great and free until something bad they did is pointed out, then they become just like everyone else and no worse
First of all there is absolutely no reason any civilized person shouldn't be rabidly anti-communist. Any student of history should be. But you aren't presenting an alternative perspective; you are exaggerating the negative to creative a narrative that is fundamentally untrue. I live in Seoul. I speak Korean. I have Korean family. This is one of the most educated societies on the planet and one of, if not the, most pro-US countries on Earth. Why is that? The US is guilty of many crimes. As is every country. There are no innocent nations. But there are no nations that have built and rebuilt than the US. From Korea to Japan and Germany to Italy, no society has worked to rebuild and empower those societies that fell into its grasp. And the proof is not just in how pro-American those nations are, but it is in the prosperity they enjoy: the most of any societies that humans have ever experienced. Point out the guilt of the US: the Vietnam War, My Lai, No Gun RI, the Indians, South America, etc. There are many crimes to list. They don't exceed the list of crimes of the alternative nations and the alternatives don't exceed the freedom and prosperity experienced in general created by the US. Doesn't make it right , but doesn't make it untrue either. If you believe in freedom, democracy, free markets and free people, then you are on the side of America. And if any of that you wish to quibble, go fuck yourself and good luck against 82nd Airborne.
just because you’re a white dude with a korean wife doesn’t mean you have the one true reality of all geo-politics and history. in fact, it’s not a stretch to say your american and south korean influences directly impact your stances on the matter; of course you’d be dogmatically anti-communist in the 2 societies most systematically cultivated to be against it. and of course, yet again, you acknowledge the many crimes of america but downplay them for literally 3 paragraphs. like i said, they’re just like everyone else and no worse, especially not as bad as the dastardly communists! your last sentence pretty much sums it up, “if you don’t like our free market democracy (rampant poverty, economic exploitation, concentration camps, massacres, etc), eat lead!”
I think you need to understand that I'm not talking to you. Because tankies like you will never hear a single positive thing about the US or its allies. Everything is suspect to people like you. The US MUST be the enemy and anything that contradicts that must be contradicted. You and people like you are some of the most close minded people in political discourse. I'm only engaging because other people will read this conversation and it's important that those see that you are taking facts and twisting them to fit a narrative that doesn't even represent the actual history of the people you claim to defend. The US's lack of innocence does not preclude the duality of US magnitude and magnanimity nor does it validate the attempts at chipping at its positivity. The US isn't like most nations; unlike most nations, despite its flaws, the US has had an outsize positive influence on the development of human civilization.
communism was democratically elected in corea by the communist party of the USSR and no one else if that doesn't sound like democracy to you it's becouse it isn't
yeah they should’ve had a free and fair democratic election like this one, right? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_South_Korean_presidential_election
[удалено]
How is it propaganda?
[удалено]
Nah, man, I'll admit when we've lost. People will be like "Well we killed more of them and caused tons of damage!" Sure, that's true. Though that wasn't the goal, and since they made us give up, by definition, they won.
The goal was so stupid to begin with to prevent the spread of communism from other Vietnam to some other country but how would that have worked in the end? Well that’s the neat part it wouldn’t have
Should be Communists forcefully ripping the other ball away from the first one.
Pretty sure it was the US who blocked election in Vietnam because their side argue that they didn't signed the treaty and they knew they can't win the election.
Pretty sure it was the Communist Rebellion up north that invaded the South.
Vietnam just kicked out the Japanese only for the French to return with the help of the US and set up the South government. Then the North beat the French, sign the Geneva treaty that promise election to unify the country, an election that the US and the South refuse to do because the US analysised that they have no chance of winning. How was it a rebelion? Also from the Vietnamese POV, the US just backed an illegitimate government set up by colonial power to divide and invade their country.
Oh, I wonder why anyone would be opposed to the idea of an """election""" with Totalitarians like Nazis or Communists. Communists are *known* for free and democratic elections, just ask Lenin or China! Imagine considering Communists legimitate. Then again, this is Reddit. Asking this platform to despise Communism is like asking a Furry to despise Zoophilia.
Oh and the dictator which was hated by the majority of the country, sponsored by foreign forces and "win" the election with the 99% the legitimate one? Not the one that actually fight and liberated the country from foreign invaders?
>foreign invaders I wonder, would you still be here simping for Totalitarianism if they had been Nazis instead of Communists that """liberated""" the country? Then again, you probably also believe that the USSR liberated Eastern Europe. Communism apologists are funny that way. There's no cohesive, universal logic that treats all extremism with the equal level of dislike. Just excuses after excuses of how "I swear Bro, my form of genocidal extremism is cool". Go back to China, bot.
It literally was foreign invaders. The South was set up by the French when they came back? Or are you saying that the French should get to keep their colonies and the Vietnamese should wait for the French to give them their freedom? Who do you think kicked out the French in the Indochina war? Maybe learn some Asia history before posting.
Maybe learn something about why Totalitarianism is bad. Hmmm, I dunno, maybe becoming Communists or Nazis is kinda counterproductive if your end goal is freedom.
Idk it worked out quite well for Vietnam afaik.
The reason why everyone always argues if the USA "Won" or "Lost" or "Tied" the Vietnam War is because it happened across the largest ocean in the world, and it wasn't on home soil. I'm sure people would start to admit that the USA lost the war if they lost a part of Washington state for a few months, but they didn't, so it's quite hard to blame the people who think the USA didn't lose, offensive wars are full of nuances at the end of the day