But can someone just give me the facts of the Vietnam war? Like why it started? Why it escalated? How it ended? What involvement the normal Vietnamese people had in it? etc
I'm not American and know nothing about it.
Wikipedia is a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Here:
http://tinyurl.com/3v7a6uq
Wow Wikipedia and google NEVER thought of those. However the reason I asked about it here was I was hoping for the general gist not some long description of this and that and this. Like 2nd world war started cos Hitler was a mad crazy who hated Jewish people, wanted them all dead and was dumb enough to invade Poland when told not to. Maybe not the most historically accurate facts but true enough, simple and quick. However I forgot that this is the internet and people like to be dicks. Thanks
shareThe problem is that the people who are knowledgeable or inclined to reply are disinclined to give you just a "summary."
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes in and tells you you're wrong or oversimplified your WWII "summary".
As far as the Vietnam War, it's somewhat similar to WWII in the sense that it was basically (for the U.S.) about containing a potential--in this case communist--threat. Keeping in mind this was during the Cold War. Other countries had different perspectives on it, of course. (Now cue someone to correct my super-simple summary.)
However the reason I asked about it here was I was hoping for the general gist not some long description of this and that and this. Like 2nd world war started cos Hitler was a mad crazy who hated Jewish people, wanted them all dead and was dumb enough to invade Poland when told not to.Well, why didn't you say so? Thing is, Vietnam is rather complicated. You need to start with Hitler's invasion of France.
Thank you I probably should have said that I didn't want a proper history lesso. I had no idea that the French were involved. Anything I knew about the Vietnam war was what I saw in TV shows and movies and I've never seen anyone go into why it happened.
shareWow I never thought anything would persuade me to authenticate and post on IMDB but here I am. A very interesting thread to follow, I totally respect your interest in knowing a bit about the past. Hopefully you see by @Tom_Veil's response that simplification is not always best, especially about history. E.g. going back to what @hannonle said, you seem to have forgotten the entire Pacific War component of WWII in your simple summary. As they say, those who do now know their history are doomed to repeat it. The problem for me is that, the more history I know, the more futile life seems. I cannot understand how people cannot just live and let live. What is the point of all the killing? The loss of one life to war is an infinite tragedy. If you don't think so, imagine the lost life is yours, or someone you truly love. Anyway, don't rely on TV or movies (or mass media in general) to keep you well informed about history or even current events. Observe through as many different channels as possible - read, watch, listen, think, learn. Give peace a chance.
sharejess,
It was, like Korea, a 'proxy war' between the Western Democratic Powers, and the Eastern Communist Powers.
It seemed like a better place to fight for control of the world, than at home HERE or for China / Russia (USSR), over there in their home(s).
The concept was, for us anyway, a fear of the Domino Theory. In 1954 Pres, Eisenhower said,
"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."
So we fought. We took over after the French left. The Viet Minh beat them out. Before WWII the French held the country as part of their 'empire', and called it French Indochina.
Frankly, I'm torn on all this myself.
I'm a kid of the 50's and 60's, a Cold Warrior who served after the Viet Nam war was over. I grew up with the war on TV news every night, and we ALL had opinions. But now, I get the look back to see that the Domino Theory DIDN'T happen. The world leaders THEN had no crystal ball to see the future, neither side did. (and who does for that matter?!)
Wars most often seem wrong or stupid after the fact.
WHAT IF someone had killed Hitler before he took over Germany? And who gets to decide which are the bad guys? I'm sure Gen. Tojo would GLADLY have shot Oppenheimer and the rest of the Manhattan Project to stop the atom bomb.
To the Japanese THEN, he would be the HERO!
jess, if I could tell you anything about history it is to READ, READ, READ. A man named George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it".
For now, READ, READ, Read. And when you have kids, TEACH, TEACH, TEACH!
Well, why didn't you say so? Thing is, Vietnam is rather complicated. You need to start with Hitler's invasion of France.
Wanting to reunite the South under Communist rule, Ho Chi Minh initiated an armed overthrow of the Republic of Vietnam in 1959. The US got involved because it was feared Communism would spread across the region.
[quote][/quoteHo Chi Minh wanted to do more than just reunite the south under communist rule. He wanted an all-communist Indochina, which was why he backed not only the Viet Cong, but the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Uncle Ho also sold out his own people to gain power.
After World War II, the French came back in to Vietnam and found themselves up against various splinter groups of Vietnamese who wanted independence.
Uncle Ho and his merry band were the best armed and equiped so he and the French made their deal-- the French armed Minh and the communists and supported them with intel and military backing in order to eliminate opposition to French rule.
Afterward, the French intended to do the same to Uncle Ho and his men after they served their purpose.
Uncle Ho, however, was no dummy and figured once all opposition was crushed or killed, he would be on top, and then he and his communists would deal with the French.
Both side playing one another against the middle.
Well, we know who came out on top on that one-- in that struggle and the one later with the U.S.
AE36
Tom_Veil is right. The US used the Domino Effect theory.
shareWhen you look for the "general gist", based on your description of the general gist of WWII's origins, you won't get much. Simple and quick don't work when you're trying to understand major historical issues like a World War.
WWII didn't start cause Hitler was crazy, hated Jews and was stupid enough to invade Poland. Was he crazy? Absolutely. Did he hate Jews? Absolutely. Was he stupid to invade Poland? Some say yes, some say no. Poland was vulnerable to invasion and the USSR invaded Poland soon after Germany and Slovakia did.
Of course this ignores the fact that Japan had gone to war with China two years earlier in 1937, Italy invaded and conquered Ethiopia the prior year and that both Germany and the USSR had taken sides in the Spanish Civil War.
The point I'm making here and won't belabor is that there is more to the story behind WWII than just a crazy, racist Hitler invading Poland. The same is true of the story of the Vietnam War. There isn't a "simple" explanation. You can either do some research and study the history of the era, or remain ignorant of the reasons for the war. That is of course your choice.
Sorry for the late reply. Someone else just commented so I thought I'd just explain why I wanted something short and simple. At school you learn SO much about WWII that it all becomes moosh and all I really knew was what happened, not why it happened. But when you start looking at the basics of why it happened and you get a strong understanding of that it is then easier to look into the psychology and tactics of it all.
This relates to Vietnam in the fact that Wikipedia and Google give far too much information with the assumption that you know the basics. I didn't, so wanted a quick lesson so then learning about the in-depth details becomes easier
It's nobody's fault other than your own that you don't "know the basics" about Vietnam.
The fact that you want "something short and simple" only reflects badly on your lack of intellectual curiosity.
I'd hazard a guess that you live within two states distance of Kentucky.
Actually I'm English studying Electrical Engineering at university... just to give you some background knowledge of my intellectual curiosity and geographical standing.
I don't know the basics because it was never something I was taught in school, just as I'm guessing you weren't taught much about the English civil war. On top of this my interest in History at school was basically negligible so even if it was taught I wouldn't have taken much in... just as I didn't take much in about the English civil war. But I know alot about it now, as I have had the time to explore it myself
I think it's a shame you have such a personal issue with Kentucky. Maybe you should seek some help to come to terms with any feelings of inferiority you have with it
Anyone wanting a "short and simple" explanation of a war is intellectually lazy. Your earlier description of WWII was just as facile and as an Englishman you can hardly justify not knowing about this part of your very important history. Sometimes you actually have to read a lot and a number of different viewpoints to actually understand. Can you imagine if someone said I want to be an electrical engineer, can I complete the degree this afternoon? This is akin to your question … simply ridiculous as a proposition ….
shareBut what I don't get is that I have explained quite a few times that I was interested in a "short and simple" explanation to give myself a basic understanding. I have actually read a lot more about the subject and most of the information on this board gave me a good base to expand on.
I was using the terrible description of WW1 as an example of a basic area with which I expanded my own knowledge of the war on. I obviously know a lot more about it due to reading online, reading literature and poetry from the time and about the time, talking to people about it and coming to my own conclusions about the information.
If someone said I wanted to be an electrical engineer I would be very happy to sit with them and explain the basics and suggest some books and papers for them to read. That is more akin to my question and not ridiculous in the slightest
And I'm not an Englishman. I am English
"short and simple" explanation to give myself a basic understanding
If someone said I wanted to be an electrical engineer I would be very happy to sit with them and explain the basics and suggest some books and papers for them to read.
Ok so this was just an issue with the language I used? The explanation I gave about WW1 was just an example of the type of response I was looking for. As I mentioned many times in my post I was looking for some background context for a very broad and complicated subject.
With Electical Engineering there is no point in trying to understand any of it without first learning the complete basics. I would probably explain the linear relationship between voltage and current. This would give someone a good basis to then read about components used in circuits, the laws and behaviour of electricity, applications of specific circuits. Without understanding the basic equation of V = IR there is no point in reading anything else.
I don't get why my desire to find out a small amount of information is such a problem for you? Surely any kind of curiosity about any subject is good.
As a side note your sexism is completely ridiculous and offensive. Your condescension is less offensive but still ridiculous.
I don't get why my desire to find out a small amount of information is such a problem for you?
Surely any kind of curiosity about any subject is good.
You do realise that it is ridiculous for you to make a generalising statement about my intellect based on the content and location of one question. Would you be just as outraged if I had been talking to a someone about GM,V and asked them for a history of the war? I don't really see how this is different
As an example of why I didn't go to Wikipedia. I know Gauss's law. I have learnt about it in books but mostly through talking to people about it in depth. Here is the Wikipedia page on Gauss's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law
When I was in first year I looked it up and found this. The content is all there but the people reading that page will need background knowledge of the subject.
I had little to know background knowledge of the Vietnam war. I asked for some. I'm clearly an idiot
Of all the places to source for information on a war, a movie site should not be the first (or second, or tenth or twentieth) choice. "When someone shows you who they are, believe them, the first time". I believed you, the first time.
shareWhy is that? Have you read any of the replies of the people who honestly wanted to help me learn about a new subject? Do you think that they lack insight and thought. I actually found what people have had to say very interesting.
I try to learn from my mistakes but this definitely hasn't been one. I think an appropriate Maya Angelou quote would be
"Any book that helps a child to form a habit of reading, to make reading one of his deep and continuing needs, is good for him."
well said travischar
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
After WWII the USA committed itself to stopping the spread of communism in the world. At first it was limited to the reconstruction of Europe but when China became communist in 1949 their commitment became global and they financially supported the French attempts to recolonize Indochina as well as engaged in their own war in Korea. When the American war in Korea ended in a stalemate in 1953 (which is why there is a communist North and a democratic South) and the French war in Vietnam ended in a communist victory in 1954 (which again divided the country into a communist North and a less communist South) the US found itself in a situation to either admit defeat and potentially allow the 'Communist Monolith' to continue to spread around the world or redouble their efforts and protect post-war reconstruction of Japan. Over the rest of the 1950's they chose the latter, and by the mid-1960's found themselves with many millions of dollars invested and several thousand military advisors stationed in Vietnam with the express intent of training a democratic South Vietnamese army to fight off the godless commies. After American President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 his successor President Johnson sought to emulate the political and cultural popularity of the administration of President FD Roosevelt by initiating sweeping domestic social reforms but also engaging in a full-scale military conflict. Johnson escalated the commitment in Vietnam from several thousand advisors to hundreds of thousands of soldiers (without ever declaring war). When Johnson left office in 1968 his successor Nixon further escalated military involvement until a ceasefire was declared in 1975. The actions of the American military spurned a large resistance among the citizens of South Vietnam who formed a force called the Viet Cong that took advantage of the growing resentment of the populace towards American invaders. It is this militia that we see in Good Morning Vietnam, the citizen soldiers who maintained an ordinary existence by day but conducted covert military operations by night (as opposed to the regular military of North Vietnam, the NVA). While the American war in Vietnam is widely regarded as a victory for the Vietnamese (Vietnam is still communist today) there are people within the American military that claim American victory since the spread of communism was sufficiently contained and did not spread to Japan.
shareInteresting perspective, but sometimes a carriage return or two can really be helpful in encouraging others to read what you'd gone to the trouble of writing. ;-)
Since I'm not from the US either, just like the OP, it was interesting to read the varying opinions about the Vietnam War and its causes, but maybe it's because I'm a couple of decades older than she (he?) that I've come to learn that the simplistic, one-paragraph explanation for anything as involved as a war is never the best one.
Communism is a genocidall, cult-like political belief that sought to take over the world. North Vietnam was Communist, supported by big Communist nation's like China and the USSR. South Vietnam was much more free and asked with the U.S. We got involved to try to stop the Communists from taking over South Vietnam as well as some neighbouring countries. We didn't want to see the Communist holocaust happen to those countries like it did in other parts of the world. So we went in to defend South Vietnam from a Communist takeover.
share And did one hell of a good job, aye?
Communism actually did spread to Laos and Cambodia and it did take over the whole of Vietnam, North and South. Those who actually own and run the US never bothered if communists would take over as long as there was some kind of war there, even better if the US military was directly involved - made for such a better business.
In the end, one only has to consider the victims of such "good business", 62500 Americans dead (most between 18 and 22 years old), thousands more scarred for life, about 2 million Vietnamese dead (I know, I know, they don't count as much but still, they ARE human beings) and a level of destruction never before seen - something like 7 times the bombs the US dropped during the entire WWII, if I recall correctly? Minus the last one(s) of course...
So, in the end, WHY was this war fought?
Cute and cuddly boyz!!
The Vietnam War was fought because Ho Chi Minh objected to the French invasion of Kentucky. :)
shareActually, communism is an economic system, not a political system. The Soviet Union was a Marxist-Leninist authoritarian oligarchy with a small ruling class (the party and its members) and the general population, i.e.: the proletariat. The "domino theory", which has long since been discredited, was one of the justifications used to get involved. I grew up during the Vietnam era and saw it every night on the news. The way the war was run was a complete Charlie Foxtrot, since McNamara, who much later admitted he totally screwed the thing up, ran it like it was a business operation, not a military operation. They were obsessed with body counts, not territory taken and held, which is how you actually win a war (see WW2 for a good example). Add in the idiotic rules of engagement and other mistakes and you end up with a quagmire you can't see any good way out of.
share
I know I'm several years late to this discussion. I think some of the people here have been pretty rude to you. Anyway my simple answer would be that the US government was against Communism and was trying to stop it from spreading, thus avoiding nuclear threats, etc. For this reason they got involved in the Vietnam conflict in the early 60s (1962?). I believe the US finally pulled out of Vietnam in 1974.
When a cold momma gets hot, boy how she sizzles!
Thank you for your reply. I don't mind that people think I'm an idiot for asking about this in the way I did as I've found peoples replies very interesting.
shareSo instead of reading and researching, you come to a board and expect people to work and slave for you and give you a nice, tidy summary on a silver platter, doing all the work FOR you for free?
Pay me enough, and I'll give you a summary. But you shouldn't expect it for free, especially about something as complicated and multi-layered as the Vietnam murder mystery.