Asymmetrical Information

The history lesson that people need the most is the history of Europe in the 1930's. Then, as now, anti-semitism and appeasement were very popular. Then, as now, the UN (at the time, the League of Nations) was completely ineffective.

I suspect that somewhere along the way Tony Blair *did* read about Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain. And he seems to prefer to go down in history as another Churchill than as another Chamberlain.

Tonkin, Annam, Cochinchina - French colonialism. France offered "autonomous" government in 1949 within its jurisdiction; around the time Ho began work with the Chinese. After French defeat in 1954 the land was split at the 17th Parallel with separate governments.

Speaking of the long arm of communism, the Korean War was in fact a battle with China; it's just that the United Nations-flavored U.S. forces spent themselves hacking away at Mao's toe.

The most interesting thing is that they use all these examples in arguing about Iraq, even though true examination of the facts might make the case for the other side.

Unclear. "About Iraq" implies both "sides"; which argument do you believe would benefit from correct analysis? Or do you suspect that correct historical references could benefit either side, depending upon their presentation?

"Nearly 100% of Americans don't have any idea what we were doing in Korea, and also, don't seem to know that the Chinese were involved."

Most of us don't know that we never really left Korea, either. But, hey, I am not throwing any stones, myself -

"I only learn the names of countries after we start bombing them..." (c. John Stewart, The Daily Show)

- Nice rant, keep it up.

"The last Frenchman I talked to thought Puerto Rico was an American colony."

Well, it's not so far from the truth: it has commonwealth status. How independent is a country where "...defense is the responsibility of the US"? This hardly is the status of an independent nation, it rather is a protectorate (what a euphemism), and this was precisely what many British and French colonial possessions were. It seems that many Puerto Ricans see it that way.

Nearly 100% of Americans I've surveyed are unaware that North and South Vietnam were not one country at any time in modern history, and that the North's invasion of the South was thus an invasion of another country with which we had a treaty, not a civil war.

I agree that knowledge of history is seriously lacking in the US. But this excerpt above is really not historical fact, but interpretation.

What is "modern" history? How long ago must the two parts of Vietnam been united in order to make feelings of single sovereignty legitimate? Did the Vietnamese people indeed feel like a single people or nation?

What does it mean to be a single nation? Did unity under Chinese authority qualify as all of Vietnam being a single potentially soveriegn nation?

How do you define a civil war? Does that fact that the two regions were separate during recent history take away from feelings of unity and sovereignty gained over a millenium of conflict against the Chinese and the French? For example, does the fact that South Asia was never one (or two or three) soveriegn nation(s) before British colonialism mean that the strife during partition cannot be called civil war?

Your definitions of "modern", "civil war", and "separate countries" appear to be defined in order to support your conclusion that the US was not involved in a civil war, but in an international war.

By the way, Puerto Rico is a colony. There is just no two ways about it. They have no voting representation in the institutions that govern it. The very big caviat (sp?) is that they democratically choose to remain a colony.

I agree with Arnold Kling, but suggest going back even further. To the Ottoman Empire and its breakup after WWI.

That's the context of Iraq that needs to be understood. It wasn't a "country" until the British created it (out three provinces of the Ottoman Empire), in the 1920s, as a kingdom for the Hashemites to rule. Sort of a consolation prize (as was Transjordan)for their not getting Syria (the French wanted it for themselves, and kicked out the Arab "monarch").

The Hashemite king also was once known as the Sheriff of Mecca, until he lost a fight with a guy named Ibn Saud. All of this history explains the Arab attitude toward the existence of Israel, which is the real problem of the Mideast.

Without knowledge of this history, people won't be able to understand why we're going to war with Iraq.

History is poorly taught in the United States, no doubt about it. Although part of it is cultural, we tend to be ahistorical in our perspectives, which has positive aspects as well, as getting overly hung up on the past has serious consequences. That having been said, it is appalling that many really don't know very basic pieces of information. My students are largely oblivious to the Cold War and what the Soviet Union represented, and barely recall, let alone understand, the first Gulf War.

And yes, Puerto Rico could be considered a colony. Although not in the sense that a Frenchman might understand colonial rule. Puerto Rico is largely self-governing, and could obtain independence if it so chose. It is a far cry from the colonialism in Africa that France was party to (or even the way we treated Cuba in the early 20th century).

The countries were last unified, if I'm recalling correctly, in 1754 for an interlude that lasted something less than a decade. Longer, in short, than Canada and America have been separate countries.

The frenchman was using "colony" in the sense that the French had them -- someplace we're exploiting economically while oppressing the natives with the wastrel children of declining wealthy families. Rather than giving them tons of aid, all the benefits of citizenship except the federal vote, and encouraging them to go it alone if they'd rather.

By the way, Puerto Rico is a colony. There is just no two ways about it. They have no voting representation in the institutions that govern it.

If that's your criteria, then the District of Columbia is a colony as well:

-- DC residents have a nonvoting delegate in the House; so does Puerto Rico.
-- DC residents have no representation in the Senate; neither does Puerto Rico.
--DC residents get to elect their mayor and city council, but those are almost wholly subservient to the Congress, and Congress is responsible for their budget. Puerto Rico is far more self-governing.
-- DC residents are subject to the Internal Revenue Code and pay Federal income tax; residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from the Internal Revenue Code and do not pay Federal income tax.
--Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood and can vote to apply for it whenever they wish; DC will never be eligible for statehood.
--DC residents do get to vote for the President; Puerto Rico residents do not.

I think you're going to have to make a stronger argument.

What constitutes a "colony" has changed thru the times; it is a dynamic concept. In other words: what we see today as a colony is quite different from what we used to define by that word 100 years ago. I suggest it is not accurate to use yesteryear's definition for today's realities.

Another example of dynamic concept: democracy. Would you call a country where women cannot vote and where slavery is legal a democracy? Today the answer is a resounding "no"; 200 years ago it would have been "yes".

Actually, I do believe that DC is a colony. That's also the way that DC residents view their relationship with the US. (I live in Arlington, VA.)

But not all colonies are created equal. There's a moral difference between colonizing another country ala US in the Phillipines, and colonizing one as in Puerto Rico. But fundamentally, I don't see how we can get around what it basically means to be a colony: DC and PR both qualify.

Some more history most Americans seem ignorant of: the history of American interventions in the Middle East. These, also, have lessons for our current situation - if "we" could learn.

Let's cut them loose, then.

It'd be difficult to deal with the loss of the military bases, but that shouldn't be a huge problem.

I'm a little puzzled regarding the "commonwealth vs. statehood" debate that's been the standard. Why not independence? Maybe because few if any Puerto Ricans really want this, and the remainder are divided between status quo and statehood. If the status quo is so evil, let's remove the status quo as an option. I think there'd be squawking about how unfair that is, and precious little accusations of colonialism.

I'll be happy to admit that my historical knowledge needs a lot of work - but where are we supposed to get it?

I went to a pretty good high school - not a Phillips Academy, to be sure, but private and well-supported. I kept my 10th-grade world history book, and I've looked at it numerous times since.

It doesn't discuss the religious wars of Europe in the 15-1600s. (I'm pretty certain that the Thirty Years' War is covered with exactly zero reference to its religious component. For reference, this was a private school whose population was almost exclusively Protestant, so it wasn't for fear of being sued that religion was left out of it.)

It's essentially worthless for understanding WWI (I learned more from TE Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom) or WWII. Korea and Vietnam get very short shrift. Napoleon probably gets two pages. The Renaissance? Hope you didn't want to learn the major players in the political games of the time.

The rest of it you can imagine. It's just mush, worthless stuff. And I was in my late 20's before I realized that, because most of the other people around me were just as ignorant.

That said, does anyone know of a good freshman-level Western Civ/World History textbook? (I don't trust any of my local colleges to have a good one.)

Amitava,

While I would agree that one needs to be careful in defining "civil war," etc., I think that you go too far the other way.

Bruce Cumings, of course, has long argued that the Korean War was a "civil war" as it was simply fought between Koreans. Yet, it is hard to interpret the invasion of the South by the North, the latter supported, armed, and supplied by the Chinese and the Soviets as somehow a difference solely between North and South. Such a definition could well be excessively narrow. Would the East German portion of a Soviet invasion of West Germany have been merely a "civil war"?

I confess to being one of those uneducated Americans, a fact which gives me nagging doubts whenever I render opinions about world affairs. I'm also an avid reader and have learned much of what I do know from good books. Do you have any recommendations for good American history books (or western civ/world history books, for that matter)? I've been wanting to kickstart my historical knowledge for awhile now, but I just don't have enough background to know where to begin.

Perhaps the best way to solve the "DC Statehood Crisis" would be to give the land back to the two state who donated it in the first place. Let them hash out who does what, give the folks who choose to live there full representation and get this annoying little arguement out of the limited public view. It would be interesting to see the Federal Government paying taxes to Maryland!

Jane, I find I must question your Historical competence on this one point. Didn't the Genevea Accords of 1954 split "Indochina" into two parts, north and south? By way of exposing my Biases, I am a right-wing "hawk", Vietnam Vet, who thought we SHOULD have been there, should have fought a real war, and should have won.

Yes, but it reflected a prior administrative split within the French colonial administration, which itself reflected earlier national borders. Or so I'm told. It would be like claiming that Ecuador and Paraguay are the same country because they were both once ruled by Spain.

No need to go that far back.

Most americans in a recent poll said they thought Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that there were Iraqis among the hijackers.

Gee, what could have given them that idea?

Most americans in a recent poll said they thought Iraq was involved in 9/11

Hey, the Czech Connection has stuck. Some of us do believe it, though, and expect to see far more evidence to that reality once Baghdad is turned inside out.

and that there were Iraqis among the hijackers.

Gore voters. ;-)

Puerto Rico and DC are not colonies. But that's not because PR has been offered indedpendence and refused or because Dc can vote for president.

The reason is that citizens of PR and DC are full U.S Citizens and have all the rights and privileges of citizens. The residents choose to live where they do, but they could choose to live anywhere in the vast bulk of the U.S.A. where (except in 2000) we get to elect our leaders democratically.

If one percent of Puerto Ricans moved to Wyoming, they could elect two senators and a congressman all on their own. If all District citizens moved to Maryland, they could have a big effect on one or two congressional districts. There would be no problem registering or voting because there are no "colonized" or disenfranchised people.

That's why there is no colony.

the Czech Connection has stuck

Huh?

BTW, Maybe somebody with more expertise can comment but I don't think that South Vietnam and NV were equivalent to Ecuador and Paraguay.

"Most americans in a recent poll said they thought Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that there were
Iraqis among the hijackers."

Not quite. The poll asked if people thought Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. The poll results were spun to suggest that the Bush Administration was lying about theSept 11 highjackers.

It's worth pointing out that the legality of South Vietnam is questionable, due to the fact that the elections which were meant to be held, in 1956, were halted by the U.S.

Hmmm...

The more I read about it the more it seems that whoever told you that NV and SV were two separate countries with only a very distant past in common (like Ecuador and Paraguay) either did not know what he/she was talking about or has some special definition which most of us would not recognize.

I'm not arguing the legitimacy of their government or not -- only that most Americans are under the impression that we were intervening in an internal affair, not an international war.

And GT, sorry, I misspoke -- should have been Argentina and Paraguay. It's fixed now.

No CS.

At least in one poll 52% answered "yes, he was" to the following:

Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, or not?

This poll was taken 9/02. That same question asked in a poll on 2/03 showed 42% agreeing with it.

They were studying asian military history, so perhaps. Please share your sources.

Jane,

Even with Argentina and Paraguay I don't see the analogy (if anything Argentina and Paraguay are even more distinct than Paraguay and Ecuador).

I haven't read anything on Vietnam's history for a while but a quick review on the web to refresh my memory shows that the Vietnamese were a distinct people which fought invaders for centuries and the only time they were divided in clearly separate camps was after the 1954 accords.
Vietnam seems to have started in the North and, over many centuries grew towards the South. There were internal rivalries but never two separate countries. The French conquered them from the South so maybe that's where the confusion comes from?

Does anybody have better information?

This poll was taken 9/02. That same question asked in a poll on 2/03 showed 42% agreeing with it.

By whom? To whom? How big was n? What confidence interval?

It's all available in pollingreport.com

On January 03 a poll asked :

"As far as you know, how many of the September 11th terrorist hijackers were Iraqi citizens: most of them, some of them, just one, or none?"

21% said most of them.

23% said some of them.

6% said just one.

Only 17% said none of them.

The report GT is talking about is here. The specific poll is about 1/5 of the way down the page. "N=1,204 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3."

I also like the question before the one GT is referring to:

"Please try to answer my next questions about Iraq to the best of your knowledge. But if you're not sure of an answer, that's okay -- just tell me and I'll go to the next question. Do you think Iraq and Al Queda -- Osama bin Laden's organization -- are allied and working together to plan new acts of terrorism, or not?"

Are allied 65%
Are not 16%
Don't know 19%Interestingly enough, the 16% who were right on this question are within the margin of error of the 17% who were right on the number of hijackers.

One sixth of Americans, in other words, have enough knowledge to correctly form an opinion about war with Iraq. This is not encouraging.

"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, or not?"

To be fair, this is a question of opinion, and "personally involved" could be interpreted pretty broadly. Did he have advance knowledge? Did he provide any financial support? Hopefully no one thought he was actually on one of the planes.

You can certainly argue that supporting evidence is weak at best, and I'm surprised that such a large number would answer in the affirmative, but it's hardly an example of historical ignorance along the lines of Jane's examples. The "how many Iraqi citizens" example is closer to mark.

Sean,

You are correct that there is a difference between ignorance of established facts and differences in opinion. But several of the examples Jane gave were of the opinion type. In fact, one could argue that most of them were. The one exception seems to be the involvement of the Chinese in the Korean War which is directly comparable with the ignorance about the Iraquis as hijackers.

But we've seen that NV being a different country than SV seems to depend on the definition of country. Certainly no definition I normally use would support Jane's point.

Or with Puerto Rico being a colony. Although I think they are NOT a colony I also realize that it can be viewed that way.

Leanard.

Your supposed "correct" answer is an opinion. OBL's pronouncement that Muslims should defend Iraq sounds indistinguishable from an alliance.

Perhaps you feel that unless they sign a treaty in front of witnesses it's not an alliance. I take the view that each is perfectly willing to cooperate to fight America. This is a de facto alliance. The fact that OBL hates SH is meaningless. Churchill hated Stalin and that didn't prevent the Brits from allying with the Soviets.

"One sixth of Americans, in other words, have enough knowledge to correctly form an opinion about war with Iraq. This is not encouraging."

That seems about right. I would also venture to say that roughly the same percentage of Europeans have such knowledge. Which is why I don't get too worked up about polls that say people here support war, or people there don't: for the most part, people everywhere are just going on gut reactions, without any deep knowledge of the arguments pro and con.

Devilbunny: It's not quite the text you're looking for but, assuming you have not already read it, I believe you would find David S. Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations helpful, and very enjoyable.

Currently listing for $16.95 at Barnes & Noble online.

Perhaps the best way to solve the "DC Statehood Crisis" would be to give the land back to the two state who donated it in the first place. Let them hash out who does what, give the folks who choose to live there full representation and get this annoying little arguement out of the limited public view. It would be interesting to see the Federal Government paying taxes to Maryland!

Crudeboy, I take it on myself to speak for the non-Democrat minority of Maryland to say we really don't want DC dumped on us. We've just gotten to the point where the Dems in Baltimore don't swamp the Republicans in the suburbs, and moving DC back into Maryland would tilt us hopelessly back.

BTW, the piece of land Virginia gave to form DC was returned; it is now Arlington (and Alexandria, I think), where the Pentagon, Arlington Natl Cemetery, and Reagan Natl Airport are. So if the district was returned to the states (shudder) it would all go to Maryland.

The usual preference of DC residents is that they would be made a state all by themselves, giving them 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. You could rely on them being Democrats, but given the quality of mayor DC tends to elect, the Democratic Party might not want to claim them.

Any of these changes would take a Constitutional Amendment, so I don't see it happening any time soon.

"Nearly 100% of Americans I've surveyed are unaware that North and South Vietnam were not one country at any time in modern history, and that the North's invasion of the South was thus an invasion of another country with which we had a treaty, not a civil war. People who did know this seemed not to have thought about it too hard. "But they're ethnically the same," explained one otherwise intelligent apologist for Uncle Ho. Hmmm. Does that mean we can invade Canada?"

"The countries were last unified, if I'm recalling correctly, in 1754 for an interlude that lasted something less than a decade. Longer, in short, than Canada and America have been separate countries."

Vietnam has been as much of a unified nation state as any other random "country," if not more so; compare its history to, say, pre-unification Germany. The Vietnam war was a typical post-colonialist civil war in all but name.

the Czech Connection has stuck

____________

Huh?

Less sarcasm, GT, more knowledge of current events.

Czechoslovakian intelligence maintains that Mohammed Atta met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in June 2002 and April 2001. Less than a month after the meeting, al-Ani was deported for suspected espionage.

Thanks, anony-mouse. I've not read it, but I have read more than a couple of brief reviews of it. It does seem like the sort of thing I'd be interested in, but, as you noted, it's not quite what I'm looking for.

I really need the advice of a wise college prof or current student. Unfortunately, I don't trust the local institutions to have something that is rigorous enough (it would likely be either watered down or postmodernized).

Michael,

Jeez, even Bill Safire has long ago accepted that there is no evidence for that famous meeting. In fact the head of Czech counterintelligence has publicly disavowed the evidence.

I can't believe you are still pushing that!

BTW, you do know that as of June 2002 Atta was dead, don't you? (just tweaking you).

A "colony" whose inhabitants have the right to vote themselves independent is not a colony, period. Even full-fledged U.S. states don't have that power. The fact Puerto Rico citizens also have the full rights of U.S. citizens is icing on the cake; however, it is not dispositive of the issue of what is or isn't a colony. I'm no history buff, but I'd be willing to bet that until not too long before the American Revolution, the average colonist assumed he had all the same rights of an Englishman, but he was under no illusion that the colony he resided in was anything other than a colony.

Zrlq has it right. Puerto Rico is not a colony, no way, no how. Puerto Rico has been given the opportunity multiple time (and fairly recently too, in fact) to vote between independence, state hood, and retaining its commonwealth status. Every time it has voted to remain a commonwealth. End of story.

Read here for the view of the Czech head of foreign intelligence.

And here for reporting from Bill Gertz (!) saying US intelligence agencies see no evidence the meeting ever happened.

Bill Safire, who was one of the most public proponents of the Atta-Iraq intelligence meeting in Prague has accepted he made a mistake.

From the Cambridge International Dictionary (online):

Colony: a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful and often distant country.

Somebody correct me but isn’t Bermuda a British colony that has the right to vote itself out if it so wishes?

From the Cambridge International Dictionary (online):

Colony: a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful and often distant country.

Somebody correct me but isn’t Bermuda a British colony that has the right to vote itself out if it so wishes?

Keypad mistake, GT. June 2000.

Bill Safire, as far as I know, has not dismissed the action - the Times probably has.

The Czech government, like the American government, is divided on the issue - most likely on political lines. It's not a pan-government statement, nor is are the allegations against the meeting particularly compelling.

You don't believe al-Qaeda ties with the Ba'athists; I do. As with all things, come Baghdad's liberation, I expect you to be a bit surprised.

Bill Safire has dismissed it.

In a November Times column, for instance, William Safire declared it an "undisputed fact" that 9/11 terrorist Mohammed Atta had visited an Iraqi agent in Prague, even though investigations by the CIA and by the Czech intelligence agency--not to mention reams of reporting by Safire's own paper--had determined that no such meeting had ever taken place. Later, Safire changed his mind, calling his assertion "a hunch," but not an error--and nobody, save MSNBC columnist Eric Alterman, called him on it.

From the Washington Monthly.

You've been good with links, GT; how about Safire?

The Gertz article was simply echoing the leaks from intelligence that worked to discredit the Prague meeting in mid-2002. And if you read the article beyond the headline, the officials questioned are "agnostic" about the meeting. They can't rule it out.

Like I said: the allegations against are nowhere near compelling.

Yes, Safire. Notice how he says it's "a hunch," not, "damn, I'm a goddamned fool to speak against the volumes and volumes and volumes of evidence flatly ruling out the meeting."

"The reporter's own paper" - extremely humorous, given the Times flagging credibility through intellectual dishonesty. Alterman, the ad-hominem, logically-challenged journalist, referenced as if he were a magistrate?

GT, the naysayers have nothing to stand on but a reasonable doubt which, when the Praque meeting possibility is added to the likelihood of Saddam's involvement with al Qaeda, lessens more and more.

Michael says: Czechoslovakian intelligence maintains that Mohammed Atta met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani

The head of Czech Foreign Intelligence says:"If Mohamed Atta was here [in Prague], he was just passing though. If there were any meetings [between Atta and al-Ani], they have not been verified or proven."

Who to believe?

Yes, Safire. Notice how he says it's "a hunch," not, "damn, I'm a goddamned fool to speak against the volumes and volumes and volumes of evidence flatly ruling out the meeting."

"The reporter's own paper" - extremely humorous, given the Times flagging credibility through intellectual dishonesty. Alterman, the ad-hominem, logically-challenged journalist, referenced as if he were a magistrate?

GT, the naysayers have nothing to stand on but a reasonable doubt which, when the Praque meeting possibility is added to the likelihood of Saddam's involvement with al Qaeda, lessens more and more.

A number of the colony criteria mentioned above don't meet a clear historical test - the colonies (now states) of Australia.

Prior to independence (or at least Dominion status) in 1901 Australia was a set of six colonies. In the decade leading up to Federation there were no restrictions on Australians going to the UK (after all, they were still British citizens), and at the same time the separate colonies were all debating the merits of the proposed Federal constitution.

If what are now the Australian states were not colonies in the 1890s, what were they?

It's not a matter of opinion that we were actively blocking Japanese expansion plans in Asia, nor that Vietnam wasn't a unified country. Or are you arguing that you would currenty support the aggressive wars that unified much of Europe if they happened today? Nor would it have been a civil war if East Germany had attacked West Germany. This argument is stupid. A civil war is an attempt by one part of a unified country to break away, ethnically cleanse, or expel the other half. Arguing semantics doesn't make that the same thing as a Chinese-financed war of conquest attempting to forcibly take over territory that had never had a common political lineage.

And while I haven't seen any clear evidence linking Iraq to Al Quaeda, it's foolish to assert that this means there positively isn't a connection, and that the 16% is "right", when such a proposition is impossible of proof -- especially when we're about to invade and answer the question definitively.

I also heard just today from at least two separate people who believe that oil reserves in Alaska are the 2nd largest in the world, so add geology to the list. This is also a common misconception.

Devilbunny,
The books written by Barbara Tuchman cover a lot of interesting periods in history and are very well written. She is (was) an excellent historian who thoroughly researched her topics before writing about them.

“I'm talking about educated Americans, here, not the folks who can't place the Civil War in the correct century. The most interesting thing is that they use all these examples in arguing about Iraq, even though true examination of the facts might make the case for the other side.”

Wow, I coincidentally just posted my scathing comments regarding the Baraka scandal. I normally don’t post the exact same thoughts on the very next thread. However, this time I think I will make an exception:

“’That afternoon, Mr. Baraka's read aloud his controversial "Somebody Blew up America" and argued point-blank in his subsequent speech that Israel knew about and was complicit in the attacks of September 11th, garnering him wild applause and numerous standing ovations. ‘

This is further evidence of the dubious degree programs at the so-called elite schools like Yale and Harvard. These students are incredibly poorly educated and mediocre. Yale should be investigated for fraud. Am I being facetious? Nope, I’m dead serious.

Richard Hofstadterr made a big deal about anti-intellectualism in America. He was right on target in criticizing the hostility toward learning by the red necks and bible thumpers of America’s past. Nonetheless, Hofstadterr ignored the legitimate American “anti-intellectualism” that should be encouraged and treasured. A person who acquired an advanced degree is often nothing more than an intellectual whore. It is very reasonable to presume that everyone with a Ph.D. behind their name is an idiot until proven otherwis

Is Puerto Rico more of a colony than, say, Martinique? If you go for strict legal definitions, neither island is called a colony in the official documents of the nations that claim them. But both sure as heck look like colonies, to the extent that they are in between full integration with and separation from their former colonial masters, with this difference: from what I understand, the French have given Martinique more political representation than we give Puerto Rico.

I don't think that it's wrong to call either a colony. What would be at stake in doing so, aside from supposedly showing that the French are "ignorant" of U.S. politics?

North and South Vietnam had not been the same country for a tremendous amount of time. There's a much better claim for, say, Mongolia being part of China. How many people realize exactly how Mongolia became independent this century?

Of course, everyone should have learned about Columbia and Panama. Exactly at what point would a Columbian attack on Panama have ceased being a "civil war," according to posters here?

Then of course there's the European examples. Italy and Germany were notably not "unified" until the nineteen century. However, even some parts traditionally considered Italy by at least some residents and Italians were given back to France, whereas some Italians still wanted the Dalmatian coast. Austria was more ethnically German than anything else. And then there's Alsace-Lorraine.

Would either French or German attacks to recover Alsace-Lorraine when the other possessed it (or German or Danish wars for Schleswig-Holstein) be considered civil wars or not? What about Germany trying to obtain Austria?

I notice many leftists are willing to call the war between N. Vietnam and S. Vietnam a civil war. What about Tibet and China? China thinks of Tibet as part of historical China, and has for a long time. The Tibetans differ. Civil war or no? And how does this differ from Chechnya?

Trying to decide whther something is a civil war or no based on abstractions and national feelings is nearly impossible. It also leads to inflamed feelings and disaster. Trying to bring up history is usually no help either. Even trying to see whether countries are recognized by the international community is often no aid.

However, under most reasonable standards, I don't think that the invasion of S. Vietnam by N. Vietnam was a civil war. It was a war of conquest and unification. They simply were separate countries, and had had separate administration for a very long time.

It's a matter of opinion as to what exactly we were doing and why against Japan. Different people will interpret it differently. It is not the same as saying that there were Iraquis among the hijackers.

I happen to agree with your assesment, btw, based on what I remember of the origins of the Pacific War. But it's not as black and white as you put it.

As for Vietnam you provided no evidence that it was two separate countries prior to 1954 and based on what I have read, that is simply not the case.

Nations that have been separate over a long enough period of time can become different countries. I would say that is the case of the Koreas today or even Germany prior to unification. But that was not the case when the Vietnam conflict began, as you seemed to indicate. When the conflict started there was no long history of two separate countries.

I'm still waiting for a definition under which , as you say, North and South Vietnam were not one country at any time in modern history. I have not found one.

Finally, your French friend seems to have been correct. Puerto Rico, like Bermuda, can be called a colony.

You were correct about one thing Jane. We all could use a little bit more reading on history.

"That said, does anyone know of a good freshman-level Western Civ/World History textbook? (I don't trust any of my local colleges to have a good one.)"

Gosh darn it, I think someone else is becoming sufficiently cynical. Maybe we can start a revolution?

North and South Vietnam had not been the same country for a tremendous amount of time.

If true, I'll stand corrected. But I have not read anything that supports this. Any links or further explanation?

As for Colombia and Panama if Colombia had attacked immediately after the secession by Panama it would have been impossible to say they were two separate countries as Panama was part opf Colombia. If they did that today, 100 years later, then it would be a different story.

History Book recommendations:

If you want a single overview of Western History, a good place to start would be Norman Davies one-volume work, Europe. It's obviously tremendously high level, trying to cover everything in 1000 pages, but it does a surprisingly good job. That'll give you a skeleton which you could fill in by reading additional books on periods which interest you.

For American history, it's not narrative but the first two volumes of Daniel Boorstein's The Americans are fabulous. (Never read the third volume.) They deal with issues in the colonial period and western expansion. It won many awards, so I'd think any good library should have a copy, although I'm pretty sure it's out of print.

GT, it's simply not in question that what we were doing blocked Japanese plans. Why we were doing it may have been arguable, although I think you'd be hard put to make a coherent argument now that the archives are open; but what we were doing isn't in doubt. We funded the Flying Tigers, staged military forces in what they considered to be their sphere of influence, and made it impossible by our presence in the region to take over areas they desired without declaring war on us. Why are you arguing this?

As for the rest, you may go read the history of Viet Nam yourself. It was a collection of feudal states with three main power centers; Hanoi and Saigon were not united under one state. Even under the French they were in separate administrative districts which I'm told enjoyed a fair amount of autonomy; I believe they overlapped Cambodia, Laos, etc. I don't know that much about the history, but from what I've read, and been told, my description's accurate.

Why do I argue? I was just pointing out that some things are strictly factual in nature while others involve a degree of opinion. But that's fine, I'll accept your point.

As for Vietnam your description does not support the two separate countries theory. It may not have been a unified nation but it wasn't two separate distinct ones either. It seems more of a mishmash like Italy in the 1850s, say. Had part of Italy separated in 1855 and the rest attacked it one couldn't say they were two separate countries attacking each other.

Or would you?

“The history lesson that people need the most is the history of Europe in the 1930's. Then, as now, anti-semitism and appeasement were very popular. “

Yup, I also find it appalling that few people realize that the pacifists inadvertently had much to do with the rise of the Third Reich. Winston Churchill was perceived by many as a war monger and the appeasers like Neville Chamberlain were glorified as men of wisdom and prudence. And yes, Hitler took full advantage of the anti-Semitism pervading Europe--and the United States at that time.

The evidence is overwhelming that Adolph Hitler should have been no more than a minor league thug who barely deserves a footnote in the history books. Moreover, most of Hitler’s generals were stunned by their easy victories over France and the other European nations. Am I making a wild guess to support my position? Not in the least. We know this to be true because of the enormous research done after the war.

"Finally, your French friend seems to have been correct. Puerto Rico, like Bermuda, can be called a colony."

This is patently ridiculous! The Puerto Ricans have no interest in forming an independent nation. The issue has been presented to the voters---and they have repeatedly opted to stay with the staus quo. They even possess a limited right to vote in our national elections.

“As for Vietnam your description does not support the two separate countries theory. It may not have been a unified nation but it wasn't two separate distinct ones either.”

Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. The North Vietnamese leaders were dedicated Communists who would have found any half baked excuse to attack the south. I’m sure that someone adhering to such an ideology could rationalize the invasion of Canada by the United states. After all, those poor Canadians have been victimized by their corrupt masters. It is our duty to save them from a fate worse than death. The Canadians are our brothers and sisters and deserve to be under our umbrella of protection.

"Had part of Italy separated in 1855 and the rest attacked it one couldn't say they were two separate countries attacking each other."

Italy didn't exist as a nation-state in 1855. I have never heard the Italian wars of unification described as civil wars. Nor are the wars between Italian City-States considered civil wars.

Would anybody describe the Austrian-Prussian War of 1866 as a civil war. It was a war to decide who was going to dominate the German nation, but I don't think anybody ever called it a civil war.

BTW, IIRC the Geneva Accords divided French Indochina into four nation-states, Laos, Cambodia, NV and SV. Was the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1975 a civil war as well?

It's only up to the Vietnamese people to judge their own history and decide whether it was a civil war or not. There is no such thing as objective criterions here as some have tried to argue, and it is certainly not up to foreigners to make a judgment on something quite intimate for a nation.

Brett Marston said: "Is Puerto Rico more of a colony than, say, Martinique?"

You bet. Martinique is a full fledged département and has - as you hinted - full political representation in both chambers of parliement in Paris.

Brett Marston said: "Is Puerto Rico more of a colony than, say, Martinique?"

You bet. Martinique is a full fledged département and has - as you hinted - full political representation in both chambers of parliement in Paris.

The Puerto Ricans have no interest in forming an independent nation.

That is irrelevant. You seem to assume that the definition of colony include its people wishing to stop being one and being unable to do so.

That is not true.

Bermuda is a colony and has no wish to cease being one either.

Well, then, we'll also have to ditch the evil connotations attached to colonialism. After all, if your "colony" refuses to, short of forcible ejection, take its own reins in hand, there's little in the way of subjugation happening there.

"Well, then, we'll also have to ditch the evil connotations attached to colonialism. After all, if your "colony" refuses to, short of forcible ejection, take its own reins in hand, there's little in the way of subjugation happening there."

That's right! The conventional understanding of colonialism is that the folks under this political arrangement have no choice over the matter.

“It's only up to the Vietnamese people to judge their own history and decide whether it was a civil war or not. There is no such thing as objective criterions here as some have tried to argue, and it is certainly not up to foreigners to make a judgment on something quite intimate for a nation.”

Wow, it appears that someone has been reading Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault. Do we really wish to follow this premise to its logical conclusion? If so, we will be unable to voice opinions on any matter whatsoever. Am I exaggerating? Think about it for awhile.

Well, then, we'll also have to ditch the evil connotations attached to colonialism.

You are correct.

Bermudians happily call themselves a British Colony.

After so many posts we shouldn't forget how it started.

Jane made an important and valid point, that most of us lack sufficient historical knowledge. That, is quite true.

But the examples she used were not the best. Several of them, upon further scrutiny, turned out to be not as clear cut as she may have thought. Reasonable people can differ as to what they mean by colony and country and how it applies to Vietnam or Puerto Rico. Clearly, disagreeing with these examples would not be proof of historical ignorance, particularly without knowing what she meant by country or colony.

But there's no lack of examples showing historical ignorance. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans think that there were Iraquis in the 9/11 planes, less than two years after that event happened, tells you lot.

"Reasonable people can differ as to what they mean by colony and country and how it applies to Vietnam or Puerto Rico."

Sorry, but I cannot let you get away with this absurd statement. You might be a convert to postmodernism---but I am not. A reasonable person cannot disagree on these particular matters. I suggest that you put away your works by Michael Foucault and learn how to follow a logical argument. Everything is not relative. There is still such a thing as the ability to make proper distinctions.

Remember, I said 'reasonable'.

If you believe that your view, and only your view, of what is a colony and what is a country and how those concepts apply to Jane's examples of Vietnam and Puerto are the correct ones than I think it's not too much of a stretch to say that you are not included among the 'reasonable'.

The whole island of Bermuda, all 60,000 of them, will disagree with your definition of colony.

But you know better, right?

You're right, GT:

" But there's no lack of examples showing historical ignorance."

For instance this one:

" Had part of Italy separated in 1855 and the rest attacked it one couldn't say they were two separate countries attacking each other."

Since "Italy" didn't exist in 1855. But historically the city-states--Piedmont, Sardinia, Veneto, the Papal States, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Lombardy, etc. WERE FIGHTING each other around 1855. Known to students of history as the Wars of Italian Unification. Not as the Italian Civil War.

A few more broad-view, general reader, non-Left history books:

Paul Johnson: History of Christianity, Birth of the Modern, Modern Times, anything else.

Paul Kennedy: Rise and Fall of The Great Powers

And for your next long weekend...

Will Durant: Story of Civilization (11 fat volumes, but can be picked up cheap at any used book store.)

There's been a considerable shift in the meaning of "colony". Now it generally refers to an enslaved foreign nation. Originally, to the Greeks, Romans, and Phoenicians it meant a settlement of people from the founding nation or city-state. (This was not really better, since if the original population wasn't slaves, they were usually dead...) Colonists weren't without political rights - Roman colonists had the right to vote, except they had to travel back to Rome to cast it, and Greek colonies would become independent city-states if successful enough to go it alone. "A settlement in a foreign land" remained the primary meaning at least through the 18th Century, for at least 2300 years. Only in the last century or two has it come to mean something else.

Not that this helps much in classifying Puerto Rico. It's not an American settlement. If it's an exploited enslaved country, we're certainly not profiting from it - I don't have the statistics, but I would be utterly amazed if the US gets back anywhere near what Puerto Rican defense, government, and welfare costs. The majority are not looking for freedom - IIRC, both independence and becoming a state have been repeatedly voted down.

But I can't think of anything that fits as well as "colony", in the modern pejorative sense. Slavery may still be slavery even when it's an economic disaster and the slaves don't want to be freed. Look at the ante-bellum American South: originally the richest part of the country, it lagged far behind the northern states as they freed their slaves and shifted to a manufacturing economy, to the point that by the 1860's a vast Southern advantage in military skills was unable to balance the shortage of war materiel even sufficiently to obtain a draw. And then quite a few of the freed blacks couldn't find a better life than going back to work on the old plantation, if it still existed...

We ought to offer PR statehood, and if they don't take it, then give it back to Spain. Let Madrid deal with the fact that they don't speak Spanish very well either.

Pat,

If you don't get the point maybe you should simply abstain?

Just a thought.

Just a couple of points- Puerto Rico is self governing territory associated with the US. If one is try come up with a historical relationship one might look the relationship Canada and Australia had with Great Britain-until the 60's (maybe the 50's)both countries had a special relationship with GB in determining foreign relations; Queen Elizabeth is still the Head of State for Autralia and was the Head of State for Canada for a good part of the last century (she stil may be).

With respect to Vietnam, it is my understanding there was never an extended period of time where there was a Kingdom of Vietnam, however, the language (and culture?)are similar.

You could probably say the same thing about Ireland (no long standing kingdom, to many succesful invasions) but any good Irishman would tell you that they were a country which shared a unique language and culture as well as saving Europe in the early middle ages. And Ireland did have civil war in the 1920s before it became a Republic.

But I can't think of anything that fits as well as "colony", in the modern pejorative sense.

How about "protectorate"? "Vassal state"?

Markm, I would quibble on your characterization of the divergence of the North and South in the early 19th century. The northern states didn't so much free their slaves as grow away from their use; the newly settled western states never really had them (eg Ohio, Illinois), and they weren't much use even in places like Texas, IIRC. Meanwhile, the southern states grew more dependent on them with the shift to cotton. There's some irony that southern cotton (requiring southern slaves) was needed to feed the textile industry in England while the same industial advances in New England led to slavery dying out there.

Brian,

While I like Paul Kennedy the historian a great deal (and his Grand Strategy of the Great Powers, frex, was an excellent book), I'd say that "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", especially his last coupla chapters, is not necessarily his best works.

It's when historians decide to become policy wonks (as in Kennedy's last few chapters and some of his subsequent books) that they become less capable.

Kennedy, remember, posits w/ great certainty in "Great Powers" (written in the early 1990s) that the United States is engaged in "imperial overstretch" and that Japan was likely to hustle us off the stage.

Might happen, but not yet.

“The whole island of Bermuda, all 60,000 of them, will disagree with your definition of colony.

But you know better, right?”

Yup, I know better. You are an Orewellian abuser of the English language---and I simply cannot allow you to get away with your nonsense. The perforative use of colony by the French dude cited by Jane Galt is ludicrous when referring to places like Puerto Rico and Bermuda. Both of these political entities have the full right to opt for independence. I might also add that their citizens have voted down such proposals in past elections! You are making a fool of yourself.

Let's try it this way:

Puerto Rico can be defined as a "colony" by the pure technical definition of the word, since it is a distant dependency subject to the rule of a sovereign state.

As "colony" is commonly used in the modern vernacular (where it frequently conjurs up notions of imperialism and/or exploitation, due to most recent-hisotry colonial activity being structured along those lines), Puerto Rico is NOT a colony.

And if the Frenchman made it clear in his conversation with Jane that he was understanding Puerto Rico in the latter terms, is she incorrect for viewing him as ignorant?

How long are we going to parse definitions here just for the sake of "being in the right?"

As for the Puerto Ricans themselves, unless nationalistic sentiments become strong enough, I don't see them opting for independence any time soon, and statehood is almost assuredly low on the priorities list. Their voting presence in Congress would be incredibly small in exchange for what? To start paying taxes on the benefits they presently get for free?

A good account of the modern day middle east is Tom Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem." (Notice I didn't say history).

For fun read the latest edition of Judy Jones and William Wilson's "An Incomplete Education."

mthomas

anony mouse

Sounds about right.

As long as we don't pretend, as Thomson does, that there is only ONE definition of colony. Bermuda is officially a British Colony yet it can vote itself out of that position at any time.

" If you don't get the point maybe you should simply abstain?"

Good advice, GT. Does it apply to discussions of Social Security?

"And if the Frenchman made it clear in his conversation with Jane that he was understanding Puerto Rico in the latter terms, is she incorrect for viewing him as ignorant?"

"How long are we going to parse definitions here just for the sake of "being in the right?""

The answer: as long as it takes! Jane Galt made it clear that her Frenchman was using colony in the perjorative sense. Thus, this gentleman is an idiot. I'm sorry that you are intellectual kins to Bill "I didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton, but that's not my problem. I see, however, that our former President taught you well. Did you ever work the Clinton White House?

"Did you ever work the Clinton White House?"

Gulp, I meant to say "Did you ever work in the Clinton White House?" Still, I might have been right the first time!

GT-- so you agree that now, Columbia attacking Panama is not a civil war, but at the time of secession it would be. Where would you draw the boundary? And why doesn't it apply to NV and SV? Apparently it's the choice of names.

I'd also like to hear an answer on the Vietnam attacking Cambodia question, and on whether you, unlike most historians, consider the German and Italian wars of unification to be civil wars.

John,

It seems to me that the distinction between a civil war and a war between two separate countries is not a black or white one but rather a continuum of sorts.

I think all agree that the US Civil War was, in fact, a civil war. But what if the North and South had not engaged in war for, let's say, 50 years after the separation but rather went to war at the beginning of the 20th century? In this scenario the South would have been a full fledged separate country at the time of the war and it could no longer be called a civil war.

Would you agree?

I don't know where the tipping point is. A few years of peaceful separation and mutual recognition?

My point with Jane's comment was that she made it sound like NV and SV were two completely separate countries, even if they had a shared language and ethnicity, like Canada and the US today. But based on what I read that's not the case. It may not have been a single full fledged country prior to the 1954 accords but neither did it have a history of separateness that would justify talking of a country against another.

4:02 pm, 02/26/03: Rommels' letters from the beginning of the war are all about how easy his campaigns are going. He didn't seem to know just why this was so, nor did he care.

On Pear Harbor:

F.D.R. told Japan that it wouldn't be allowed to expand into China. The Pearl Harbor attack was an attempt to deter America into getting involved militarily. Remember the high % of isolationist views in the summer and fall of '41. They gambled that if America got a bloody nose, it would stay out after finding a reason to do so honorably.

Anyone who knows about Martinique would understand "a Frenchman's" claim that Puerto Rico is a colony. As GT points out, PR is, at least, more of a colony than Martinique.

In other words, you can turn the original post around: it was intended to point out that Americans are ignorant of history. Indeed. In attempting to claim that an abstract Frenchman's description of PR as a colony is itself ignorant, the author shows a lack of historical and comparative understanding, the very thing complained of in the article.

I agree with the thrust of the article. I also credit Jane with refusing to take the moral high ground. But the slam on the "Frenchman" was gratuitous.

Ah, but those "smirking Europeans" make such fun enemies. . .

No, it wouldn't be a civil war if it happened 50 years afterwards, it would be two sovereign states. We don't call the War of 1812 a civil war either, which is an even shorter timeframe than what you're describing.

Jane,

Yes, I agree with that. That was my point.

So then you realize that there is a continuum from when a conflict is clearly a civil war to when it's clearly a fight between two separate countries?

If so, I have not seen any evidence that the Vietnam conflict falls clearly (as you claimed in the original post) in the state-vs-state category.

It may not be clearly a civil war either but some sort of point in between.

How about this. If in a civil war-state scale of 1-100 the US Civil War was 1 and the Iraq-US war is 100 what was the Vietnam war? 50? 25? 85?

Or maybe the US Civil war should be , say, 15 and we leave 1 for some of the civil wars in Africa today?

Maybe there's a good reason so many people lack historical knowledge. It's not as simple as we may think to determine what are established facts and what depends more on specific definitions.

It all depends upon on what the definition of a civil war is? If a civil war cannot be a conflict between two sovereign states, then we have had very few civil wars (Russia and China come to mind) outside of Africa; Korea, Vietnam and Greece were all battles waged in the Cold War.

It all depends upon on what the definition of a civil war is? If a civil war cannot be a conflict between two sovereign states, then we have had very few civil wars (Russia and China come to mind) outside of Africa; Korea, Vietnam and Greece were all battles waged in the Cold War.

It all depends upon on what the definition of a civil war is? If a civil war cannot be a conflict between two sovereign states, then we have had very few civil wars (Russia and China come to mind) outside of Africa; Korea, Vietnam and Greece were all battles waged in the Cold War.

"It's not a matter of opinion that we were actively blocking Japanese expansion plans in Asia, nor that Vietnam wasn't a unified country. Or are you arguing that you would currenty support the aggressive wars that unified much of Europe if they happened today? Nor would it have been a civil war if East Germany had attacked West Germany. This argument is stupid. A civil war is an attempt by one part of a unified country to break away, ethnically cleanse, or expel the other half. Arguing semantics doesn't make that the same thing as a Chinese-financed war of conquest attempting to forcibly take over territory that had never had a common political lineage."

I agree about the Japan thing, but the Vietnam thing is misleading-through-selective-information. East Germany was controlled by a foreign occupying power. Ho Chi Minh wasn't. He had funding and assistance from foreign powers, but so did the American rebels.

Stuff like this and this certainly implies a common political history of some sort.

GT-- I see that we largely agree. My point originally was that it was difficult to determine what was a civil war and what was not.

Now, I myself am very reluctant to call something a civil war, especially based on ethnic similarities. I think it's far, far too easy to convert wars of unification and aggression, which might be opposed by international allies, into the "internal affairs" of a civil war, something much less likely to have international intervention. (Although of course such intervention still occurs.)

In short, I'm afraid of calling such things civil wars because I think it's inaccurate, hard to judge, and can lead to excusing more of them.
North and South Vietnam were separate enough countries, albeit with some shared history, that I would call the attack a war of unification, more similar to the Italian and German experiences, rather than a civil war.

Jason,

So the Korean War was a civil war, because, after all, he only had funding and support from Stalin and Mao, but the initial invasion was entirely comprised of his own forces?

Moreover, the split was only five years old, so based on GT's argument of prolonged separation, again, it should be viewed as a civil war?

Somehow, I don't think that fits. Maybe it's because you're not trying to recreate status quo ante bellum; the US was, at some level, trying to recreate the US as it was pre-1860 (remembering Lincoln's comment about reunification and the slaves), and the White Russians and Nationalist Chinese were, to some level, trying to recreate pre-1917 and pre-1949 (or some year) respectively. But there was NEVER a single Korea under Communist rule; similarly, along Jane's line, there was never a single Vietnam under Communist rule.

I'm not sure I agree w/ Jane about Vietnam never having been a single entity, but I'd say that there's a real problem with your definition.

And btw, where does that put China and Taiwan today? Until 1997 or so, remember, the people on Taiwan (the government there) was claiming that it was the sole rightful government of CHINA.

"That said, does anyone know of a good freshman-level Western Civ/World History textbook? (I don't trust any of my local colleges to have a good one.)"

It's not a "freshman-level textbook" but if you want an excellent read that will bring you up to speed on a lot of modern history, I strongly recommend Modern Times by Paul Johnson.

"North and South Vietnam were separate enough countries, albeit with some shared history, that I would call the attack a war of unification, more similar to the Italian and German experiences, rather than a civil war."

Yeah, I can agree with that.

And Tiawan/China is quite clearly a civil war, if you read the history of the conflict.

So maybe in my scale we could place wars of unification at 50?

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious, that the winners write the history books. If the South had won the Civil War, it wouldn't have been a civil war, but a war of independence. (And since the southern states saw states' rights as an important part of the war, their usual name for the war is "The War Between The States".)

If NV's attack in 1975 had been repelled by the SV, then it wouldn't have been a civil war. As the NV won, they can call it a civil war, and I think the default position is to agree with the current government.

BTW Jason, that VN timeline at the Terragalleria link is inaccurate in at least one respect; it was the army of NV rather than Viet Cong who attacked and conquered SV in 1975. The NV tried to imply that it was local SV communists [ie VC] who won, but that was pure propaganda. As I recall, it's generally agreed that the VC were nearly wiped out during the Tet Offensive.

Your link does suggest the North and South were once distinct culturally, and have only been occasionally politically united. A fair comparison might be if Mexico attacked Guatemala. I don't think the shared culture is enough to make that a civil war, do you? (Or consider Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.) Though once again, the winners can spin it however they like.

I guess a rule of thumb would be, if a civil war ends with two (or more) separate political entities, it's not a civil war.

"As I recall, it's generally agreed that the VC were nearly wiped out during the Tet Offensive."

Uh, by who? Westmoreland?

Jason, you've just reminded everyone of the title of this thread.

The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong. As was the entire war. It was only after American troops were withdrawn and North Vietnam--sensing American political weakness due to Nixon's resignation--violated the peace agreement, that the Communists won.

Jason, the communists concede that the the Tet offensive decimated the Viet Cong, in conjunction with the assasination campaign of the CIA's Phoenix program. Tet was a political defeat for the United States, however, in that it came on the heels of years of lying by LBJ, McNamara, and Westmoreland, which led many American voters to become totally disgusted with how the war was being conducted. When fighting a war with an enemy governed through democratic processes, the disillusionment of the enemy's electorate is the key to victory. Tet, for all the failure it encompassed for the communists on the tactical level, was a gigantic victory for them on the strategic level.

It is interesting counter-factual speculation to think about how the events may have turned out if the Phoenix program had been instituted in 1962, rather than 5 years later, when the political ground had changed. The South Vietnamese regime may have been completely irredeemable, and thus the result pre-ordained, but if the Viet Cong had been rendered ineffective 6 years earlier, the North Vietnamese regulars may have been drawn into a much more conventional conflict, with decidedly different results.

Jason, would you accept a PBS statement? This is from the transcript of one show in a 13-part American Experience series on the Vietnam War. The show is entirely devoted to the Tet Offensive and its results.

Narrator: As a military operation, the offensive had failed. The southern Vietcong guerrilla forces had surfaced, to be killed or captured in large numbers. After 1968, the war was increasingly fought by North Vietnamese as a conventional conflict. The political goal of forcing President Thieu to accept a coalition government also failed.

This appears about midway down the transcript. (Technically it's not PBS saying this, it's the guys at WGBH in Boston who produced the documentary.)

Apparently, the NV planners expected the SV people to rise up once the offensive got going. Personally, I think they were planning ahead for the final victory, and didn't want any heroic SV communists (ie VC) interfering with their plans. No, I can't point to any evidence for that, but it follows the game plan of numerous Communist revolutions.

"Jason, the communists concede that the the Tet offensive decimated the Viet Cong, in conjunction with the assasination campaign of the CIA's Phoenix program. Tet was a political defeat for the United States, however, in that it came on the heels of years of lying by LBJ, McNamara, and Westmoreland, which led many American voters to become totally disgusted with how the war was being conducted. When fighting a war with an enemy governed through democratic processes, the disillusionment of the enemy's electorate is the key to victory. Tet, for all the failure it encompassed for the communists on the tactical level, was a gigantic victory for them on the strategic level. "

I'll be damned, you're right.

Whatever the previous history of Vietnam, the Vietnam War of the late 50's to the early 70's was a civil war within South Vietnam simply because it involved SV citizens not only actively fighting each other, but also voluntarily (in most cases) providing the food and concealment necessary for the NV Army to operate in SV in spite of vastly superior firepower in the ARVN (SV government) and US forces. As for active fighters, remember, this includes not only full-time soldiers, but also peasants who kept rifles hidden under their huts and would snipe at ARVN and US troops now and then, and women and children who blew themselves up to get a few GI's. I would also count the Communist intelligence web in the combatants - from all the stories I've heard, the SV government never had a secret that wasn't immediately known to the Commies, and because we were trying to help them instead of replace them, this meant that we had damned few secret operational plans either.

And after we left, the Commies reneged on the treaty - well, duh!!! That's what Commies do, and that old red-baiter Nixon damned well knew it. As for the final collapse of SV being due to Congress cutting off military aid - I think the only thing that delayed that collapse until 1975 was the Commies fear that winning too much too fast would bring back the USAF and Army in force. Carpetbombing by B52's can't hold territory, but it sure makes it hard for the other guys to get any use out of it. I find it very hard to believe that the same SV government that had been making such a mess of the war a few years earlier, and was thoroughly infiltrated with Communist spies, could actually have won with any amount of aid once the Commies were sure that American pilots and troops weren't coming back.

In other words - Nixon spent 4 years chasing a treaty he knew would be broken, and if he thought "Vietnamization" was anything more than a cover for the US bugging out, he was delusional.

I am the only Roman Alsace-Lorraine in the world!
Email me : romanalsace7772002@yahoo.co.uk

YES,I AM THE ONLY ROMAN ALSACE-LORRAINE IN THE WORLD;MY ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS : Roman Alsace-Lorraine,17 Gregory Terrace,Spring Hill,Queensland,Australia.4000.*Email me at Romanalsace@hotmail.com

I,Roman Alsace-Lorraine,declare that France and
Germany are UNITED!
romanalsace7772002@yahoo.co.uk

Comments are Closed.