It was a civil war, initiated by the North, in which mostly Vietnamese killed other Vietnamese. The Americans intervening was absolutely a shit-show (and of course colonial history), but for the central point of your rant to stand, you’d need to show fewer Vietnamese would have died without American intervention, and that’s not a simple given.
You should spend some time talking to American Vietnamese with families who were persecuted in the immediate aftermath of the war, or who were lucky enough to escape.
The Vietnamese were largely supportive of Ho Chi Minh and there was supposed to have been a democratic reunification vote, which didn't happen. That's how the civil war started, and North Vietnam would have easily steamrolled the South (since they managed to steamroll both the South and the USA). Most civilian casualties came from horribly targeted anti-insurgency or massive American bombing raids. It's a pretty easy argument there would have been many, many fewer civilian casualties without US involvement.
> It's a pretty easy argument there would have been many, many fewer civilian casualties without US involvement.
The history of Communism in Asia would like a word with you.
Given that communism actually won in Vietnam, we don't even have to work with hypotheticals. There were certainly deaths but nothing to the level of the death toll American military power exacted on the populace.
Regarding the word intervene what I meant is that I believe it is not a good descriptor of what the US did. Makes it sound like some kind of spontaneous humanitarian mission rather than them undemocratically propping up a failing state.
Have you ever heard of the Khmer rouge in Cambodja, and how north Vietnam played a fundamental role establishing it?
IIRC Cambodia is the most bombed country in history.
...in response to the Khmer Rouge's attacks on Vietnam.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese...
> which was supported by China and the US.
Vietnam was concerned Cambodja's regime was too China-friendly, but the millions being killed under the banner of advancing socialism did not featured as a pressing concern by neither China nor Vietnam.
There were, of course, geopolitical calculations on all sides, which is why the United States and China supported the Khmer Rouge. I don't think moral revulsion alone often leads any government to declare war on another.
No. It was initiated by the South, when it refused (with US support) to participate in a national UN-monitored election, which Ho Chi Minh would likely have won.
Edit: Statement of Eisenhower, from Wikipedia:[0]
> I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bảo Đại. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bảo Đại was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.
Hostilities were initiated by the North in the form of a guerrilla war.
It's crucial to keep in mind that it was the North faction that had been fighting for independence from France. And that the South Faction comprised largely the colonial bureaucracy and Catholics.
I agree with this. But, while this is before my time (my parents' generation), my understanding is US attitudes against the war were partly self interested in the short term: many boomer teenagers and 20somethings didn't want to get sent off to participate in such massacres, and much more they didn't want to die for it. Their parents didn't want them killed either. A lot of people knew somebody who had been killed.
If there had been no conscription there would have been less antiwar sentiment.
A similar scenario played out in the 2000s in Iraq, but without conscription.
But the impact of the Vietnam war on the US was primarily due to the number of casualties, wasn't it?
I mean, you wouldn't see many protests if the US government was sending college kids to southeast Asia to chill and soak in the sun, wouldn't you? Their sons arriving dead or maimed had something to do with it.
The Vietnam war had such an impact because the US military went on such an insane spree of war crimes and civilian massacres that America permanently lost its standing as a moral authority gained in WW2. Two million Vietnamese civilians paid the ultimate price for America's geopolitical theorizing, and the disaster was prolonged for an entire decade because the country was too proud to admit it was in over its head. McNamara and then Nixon knew the war was unwinnable, but the US could not appear defeated. And so the atrocities continued. Many in the US realized all of this and became permanently disillusioned with their country.
Apologies for the off-topic rant but this comparison has been making its way through a lot of circles that really should know better. If you find yourself wishing you knew more about this topic, I recommend the Ken Burns documentary The Vietnam War or the book Kill Everything that Moves.