In another discussion" Winning the war in Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#43893, a contributor sought to excuse the role of the U.S. and its allies in overthrowing popular democratically elected governments thus:

"You remember the war on Communism, that great evil of the 20th
century? The US made a number of decisions about the socialist
regimes in the region. It backed just about anyone who was
anti-communist."

In reality, the rulers of Soviet Union often acted just as energetically as the U.S. against the spread of 'communism'. Examples include:

* Stalin's orders conveyed to the Greek partisans who had practically liberated Greece from the occupying Germans in late 1944 to disarm, which led to many of them being massacred by former German collaborators and decades of corrupt rule by right-wing governments and military dictators.

* Similar orders which were defied by Yugoslavia's Tito and which, ironically, led to the first split in the 'socialist' camp with Yugoslavia voting to support, under UN auspices, the destructive U.S. war against Korea in 1950;

* The Vietnamese Communist Party's suppression of those opposed to the return of French colonial rule in 1945;

* The Vietnamese Communist Party being made by its Soviet and Chinese 'allies' to allow the division of the country into two and the establishment of a corrupt unelected regime in the South;

The above are just some examples which illustrate that the argument given by Cold Warriors to excuse their overthrow of democratically elected governments or the suppression of popular political movements in Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, British Guayana, Indonesia, etc, was a lie.

For resources about Greece, see http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Greek_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War http://www.marxists.org/subject/greek-civil-war/index.htm

For resources about Vietnam, see my posts in other threads at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974&page=0#106544 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#44756

Is it more productive to ask the question the other way around?

Was the bringing about of the 'evil' of 'communism' necessary to effect the subversion of democracy in the 'free world'?

Communism is now all but gone, but the subversion of democracy has never been so thoroughgoing.

But then the question would be begged, as to by what agency communism was brought about, wouldn't it?

It was surely of the utmost importance that fundamental democratic principles were upheld at all times.

They weren't. Far from it.

Those that so vehemently advocate democracy were seen the world over to just step outside of its bounds whenever it suited them.

They have fundamentally blown it... and enormously invigorated non-democratic causes by doing so.

What more can I say.

Yeah Ludwig, international communists everywhere are enormously invigorated? What pompous nonsense.

The non-democratic causes never have played by the rules and never will.

Dagget is yet to give any response to the challenge that the Soviets behaviour in 1945/6 was NOT in any way representative of their behaviour in the decades after that. The fact that Stalin honoured the agreements made among the allies immediately after WW2 is irrelevant. It took only a few more years for him to start reneging on the deals. For example his attempt to drive the allies out of Berlin.

Then there was Chinese and Russian support for the North Korean communists invasion of South Korea. I wonder if Ludwig or Dagget has ever considered how happy the South Koreans are that they, at least, were able to be saved from the clutches of "the Dear leader".

After that there was Soviet and Chinese support for the invasion of South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese were so overjoyed when the communists arrived that millions of them were prepared to risk their lives on unseaworthy boats to escape.

There was the soviet crushing of the Czech's. Then there was the Soviet involvement in Cuba including their attempts to place missiles there. And later still their 1978 invasion of Afghanistan.

The loony-left revisionists have sought to redeem the reputation of the Soviet Union despite the fact that NO nation in history has killed so many of its own citizens. Of course this scenario requires the reader to suspend their disbelief while the proponent explains the vast nature of the conspiracy to cover up this reality. OF COURSE one cannot trust the "reputable" media as they are under the control of their paymasters, the evil "BIG CAPITAL". One can only trust Naomi Klein to tell us the truth.

As far as I can tell, the USA since the early 20th century has had only two foreign policy principles:

* Might is right
* The end justifies the means

Sure, it's always couched in some bulldust about freedom and democracy, but it still amounts to the same sh!t.

I note that Paul.L's mode has shifted from that of a shallow pretence of rational appraisal of the evidence at hand back to that of extreme hysterical McCarthyite anti-communism.

Elsewhere (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#44716) Paul.L acknowledges that the splitting of Vietnam into two and the imposition of a corrupt unelected dictatorship on the South was a "less than equitable settlement", but now that is forgotten and the resistance of the southerners to the regime (including those returning southerners who were made to move north under the terms of the iniquitous 1954 settlement) as an 'invasion'.

---

The point of this thread, as I wrote above, is to challenge Paul.L's excusing of the crimes of Kissinger and his ilk against the people of Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc. on the grounds that they somehow believed that, in doing so, they were fighting against totalitarian communism. (Clearly they were fighting against popular social movements that threatened the corporate interests that Kissinger served, but that is an entirely different question).

In regard to North Korea, I am still waiting for Paul.L to acknowledge the evidence I gave (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#44660) that Donald Rumsfeld, whom, as we all know, was steadfastly opposed to the possession by oppressive third world dictatorships of WMD's, in 2000, whilst director of a Swiss engineering company ABB approved the sale of "nuclear technology to North Korea, including the capacity to produce plutonium".

In regard to the Korean War, I mentioned this example to make the point that Stalin's attempts to give Yugoslavia back to the capitalist world, even against the wishes of the people living there, paradoxically, led to the socialist government that emerged there very quickly siding with the capitalist world against 'communism'.

These, and almost countless other examples make utter nonsense of Kissinger's public rationales for his crimes.

(tobecontinued)

(contiuedfromabove)

During the Korean War the overwhelming amount of violence was committed by the U.S. and its allies. North Korea was largely reduced to a moonscape by a relentless U.S. air and naval bombardment. Near the war's end a dam was destroyed, resulting in widespread drowning and a subsequent famine. This was a clear war crime.

I am not excusing the North Korean regime of today, but back in 1950, it was based on a popular political movement that had resisted the Japanese occupation. The Southern regime that the U.S. supported was largely made up of Japanese collaborators.

The clear evidence that the North enjoyed overwhelming popular support in that conflict is attested to by the following facts:

* during and before that conflict, there were guerrilla forces sympathetic to the North operating in the South, whilst every attempt to foment guerrilla opposition to the Northern government failed dismally. (This experience was repeated in the Vietnam War.)

* a whole battalion of the South Korean army defected to the North shortly before the outbreak of that war.

* that, in the early stages of the war, they came close to defeating the Southern government with very little material aid from the USSR or China (Even General McArthur once expressed his disbelief, and, almost, his disgust, that so little material aid had been given by the supposedly fraternal USSR to North Korea at that stage.)

* during the first counter-offensive against the North there was a horrific toll of civilians in the south murdered because they were deemed to be sympathetic to the North (I seem to recall the figure of 100,000 in Gavin McCormack's "Cold War, Hot War")

--

Clearly, Paul.L is not here to discuss the evidence. He is here to only to add noise in order to make it more difficult for others to gain a clear understanding of past historical events which have brought about the world we live in today.

And I won't be holding my breath waiting for Paul.L to produce evidence that I have "sought to redeem the reputation of the Soviet Union".

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Thanks Forrest Gump, Ludwig,

Ludwig, you are correct. It can be demonstrated, for, example, that the overthrow of the Iranian government of Mohamed Mossadeq by the CIA in 1953 led to the Mullahs coming to power in 1978 and at the CIA subversion of the Afghan government from 1978, even prior to the Soviet military intervention, led to Taliban rule in the late 1990's.

However, not all reactions to U.S. meddling have been negative. At the moment, much of Latin America is governed by governments that, in practice, have demonstrated commitment to social equity and democracy, including that of Evo Morales in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezula

As I wrote above, I believe that the movement referred to as 'communism' was real enough. It was the main embodiment of the aspirations of forward thinking intellectuals and ordinary people who wanted something better than the system had led to the impoverishment of ordinary people, repeated economic crisis and the catastrophe of the first world.

It's now obvious that that movement was flawed from the beginning, but it seems that most of its early leaders had their hearts in the right places. The tragic fact that Stalin felt it necessary to murder nearly all of them in the 1930's would seem to confirm that.

Naomi,
Sorry I meant Dagget,

I have to give it to you Dagget, You are clearly a far more prolific debater than I will ever be. I suppose when you are regurgitatin Naomi Kleins worldview the words just flow easier. Or Something.

I simply don’t have the time or the energy to refute ALL of your nonsense.

What I notice is that you are now backpedaling again on your ridiculous claim that the Soviet Union was NOT EVER expansionist.

You entirely disregarded those quotes which I supplied from Kruschev and Breznev detailing their goals. I present clear evidence which rebuts entirely your position and you don’t even break stride, you just move on to some other ridiculous assertion. You ended the debate on privatization issues the same way. Just staunch refusal to accept the evidence.

And then you retort with ridiculous things like rumsfeld being involved in the sale of lightwater reactors to North Korea. Did you miss the part where BILL CLINTON signed off on the deal? You know, The White House. And please tell me how THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SOVIET EXPANSIONIST TENDANCIES

You still haven’t addressed the obvious and valid assertion that the Soviet behaviour regarding the liberated countries of WW2 is NOT indicative of their behaviour afterward. And the reason why is obvious. Stalin had most of Eastern Europe to gain without any more fighting. So he kept his word and he cleaned up. Evidence regarding Stalins treatment of Yugoslav, Korean, Vietnamese, Greek, whatever, just IS NOT RELEVANT. The actions of the Soviet Union during the Berlin Crisis and afterwards was entirely at odds with those earlier decisions.

You say >> “During the Korean War the overwhelming amount of violence was committed by the U.S. and its allies.”

TBC

cont,

Not only is this totally irrelevant to the subject at hand (which you clearly have difficulty sticking to), I think the people of Sth Korea would have something to say about it. And THE NORTH INVADED. You don’t get to choose proportional response when you invade a country. Furthermore, that dastardly body, the UN, took exception to this invasion and decided to use force to protect South Korea. I for one; and I pretty sure there are quite a few Koreans of all stripes with me on this; believe the South Koreans are thanking their lucky stars day and night that they weren’t overrun by the communists

Quote >> “After another visit by Kim to Moscow in April 1950, Stalin approved an attack. North Korea agreed to send to the Soviet Union 9 tons of gold, 40 tons of silver, and 15,000 tons of monazite concentrate as payment for additional Soviet arms, ammunition and military technical equipment” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034BECA-96B6-175C-9358D5205FA9A9F8&sort=Subject&item=Korea,%20DPRK,%20Soviet%20Economic%20and%20Military%20Aid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Whether the people of the North were happy with their gov’t then or not is irrelevant. Do you really think the Germans, Polish, Czech, Rumanians would have chosen to live under the Communists? The Korean War was one of a number of attempts to spread communism throughout the world.

“When parts of South Korea were under North Korean control, political killings, reportedly into the tens of thousands, took place in the cities and villages. The communists systematically killed former South Korean government officials and others deemed hostile to the communists ...”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

This was pretty typical communist behaviour whenever and wherever they were encountered. The did exactly the same thing in Vietnam, where they murdered anyone associated with the gov’t including town officials and schoolteachers.

By the way, I couldn't help laughing when I read this gem of wisdom. >> " CIA subversion of the Afghan government from 1978 ... led to Taliban rule in the late 1990's"

I see. Not the bloody war against the brutal red army. Not the help the west gave to help the Afghans evict the red army. It was the "meddling before 1978". WOW

I will try my best to finish writing the PhD thesis necessary to respond to each and every one of Paul.L's illogical, fallacious or irrelevant arguments, but please don't expect too much in 350 words left to me, today.

Paul.L,

Nothing that you have written here negates my essential argument about the Korean War. As I have demonstrated, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that it was the Northern government, based upon guerrillas who had resisted the Japanese, rather than the Southern government, based largely upon those who had formerly collaborated with the Japanese, who enjoyed popular support.

OK, it seems as if the North Koreans, as well as South Koreans and the U.S., stand accused of having committed atrocities. Not knowing much about those claimed atrocities, I can comment little, except to say that they would have occurred in the context of a brutal civil war. The people in South had endured years of savage repression under a brutal regime based upon former Japanese collaborators which was imposed upon them in 1945. I imagine that when areas of the South had been overrun, that many of the local people were not prepared to treat those who had associated with that regime very tenderly.

Paul.L attempts to depict the betrayal of socialist movements in the West at the end of WW2 including at least Greece, Italy, Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Iran, as an aberration, but completely disregards the subsequent treatment of Vietnam and Laos, and, it would also appear, North Korea, as attested to none other that General McArthur (I can't cite the precise source of this, but I read it in "Korea the Unknown War" by Bruce Cumings and Jon Halliday).

Also. the Sino-Soviet split occurred as a result of Russia largely abandoning its Chinese ally and withdrawing the military and economic aid that it so desperately needed to confront the the threat from the U.S. following the very costly Korean War.

Also prior to WW2, Stalin had infamously sold out socialist movements in at least Spain, the UK, Germany and China.

Paul.L wrote at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121&page=0#44902
"Stalin had most of Eastern Europe to gain without any more fighting. So he kept his word and he cleaned up."

Paul.L wrote at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#44789
"As I’ve already said, the Allies divided up Europe into spheres of influence and Greece was agreed to be part of the free world."

Why Stalin have any more right to entrust the fate of the people of Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, etc. to Churchill than did Churchill have to entrust the fate of the people of Eastern Europe to Stalin?

Paul.L wrote: "The Greek people themselves ratified this decision by NOT electing the communist/socialists."

The elections were problematic in a number of ways, most obviously the fact that they were conducted under a cloud of right-wing terror against a defenceless left disarmed as a result of Stalin's deal with Churchill. To get a more more concrete picture of what this meant to the Greek people, check out the image at http://www.answers.com/topic/tagmata-as-jpg linked to from http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-civil-war The caption reads "Anti-communist militiamen display their victims".

first, there is no democracy in the west.

parliamentary governments depend on money to buy votes, and aristotle would call most of them "plutocracy".

america was explicitly created to empower 'men of property' and does so today. her policies, foreign and domestic, have always reflected the interests of wealth, most obviously in the caribbean, where visits by the usmc on behalf of corporations was habitual.

in short, democracy was not subverted, although plenty of legitimate governments were overthrown and individuals assassinated in support of american policy.

communism threatened america's wealthy in two ways: taking away markets was unwelcome, but the notion that great wealth was a crime was anathema. it could have caught on among america's poor.

so the response of the american government to the leninist coup was absurdly violent, by any practical measure. russia was never a threat to america, until america made war on russia, out of genuinely religious motivation: america's masters worship wealth.

the attack on russia after ww1 was abortive, for lack of preparation. but it was inspired by religious revulsion in america's upper class, and class revulsion in the british aristocracy- they saw the lowers killing the uppers in russia, and wanted to discourage this idea before it caught on in britain.

afterwards, peace between the masters of the soviet union and the masters of western nations was impossible. both sides used whatever means came to hand in a struggle for survival.

neither side has any claim to virtue, but the west struck the first blow. thereafter, stalin could truthfully claim that whatever he did was necessary to survival. since this was true in part, apologists for soviet policy were on strong ground. the fact that stalin was a mass murderer was inconsequential for many, since dispatching an army to a foreign country is a more obvious variety of mass murder,and happened first.

DEMOS,

I appreciate you drawing our attention to the fact that the Soviet Union was attacked at the end of the First World War by large number of capitalist countries including the UK, America, France, Japan and Germany.

However, what you wrote is contradictory.

Whilst you are critical of the Soviet system, but still offer what are, in effect, excuses for Stalin's brutal rule.

As an example, you write, "stalin could truthfully claim that whatever he did was necessary to survival."

The overwhelming evidence is to the contrary. Stalin's policies needlessly undermined the security of the Soviet Union (although they possibly ensured that his own personal rule endured).

These include:

* The purging of the officer corps in 1937

* appeasement of Hitler to the point of failing to act on numerous intelligence warnings that that a German invasion was imminent lest any preparations against invasion be interpreted as 'provocation'.

* disastrous meddling in the affairs of Communist Parties in other countries, which probably led to defeats of socialist movements in Britain (1926), China (1927), Spain(1936-1949) and also to Hitler's triumph in Germany.

* his betrayal of post-war socialist movements in the west as described above.

Arguably, some of his other policies (e.g. the rapid relocation of the industrial base of the Soviet Union to the east of the Urals) did make it possible for the Soviet Union to resist the invasion that he, himself, largely brought about, but at a terrible (and, in my view, needlessly high) cost. On the whole, what you write, gives far more credit to Stalin than he deserves.

---

My essential point is that crimes committed by the rulers of the Soviet Union, both domestically and internationally, intentionally harmed, rather than helped the cause of socialism that they claimed to espouse.

The fact that those in the west, who have stood for a better political system than what we have, have quite often, themselves, been the victims of Stalin and his heirs hasn't prevented Cold War propagandists from dishonestly holding them morally responsible for those crimes.

Dagget,

I notice your going even further off topic. My purpose in this debate has been to demonstrate the farce that you suggested ie "The Soviet Union was not ever expansionist".

That you have steadfastly refused to stick to that debate shows me that you are incapable of making much of a case.

I can no longer waste my time discussing things with you if you cannot stick with the subject. I really don't expect much from someone who honestly believes that economic liberalism is a conspiracy cooked up by the likes of Hayek and Friedman to protect the rich and screw the poor.

My views are fairly standard. You can read views like them in the Australian (this countries most respected newspaper) every day. So this all encompassing conspiracy has sucked in virtually everyone except you and a select few shut ins who still believe in fairy tales. I feel sorry for you.

So when or if you feel up to continuing the debate on the subject you set, i'll reply, otherwise not.

Paul.L,

I ask again:

"Why did Stalin have any more right to entrust the fate of the people of Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, etc. to Churchill than did Churchill have to entrust the fate of the people of Eastern Europe to Stalin?"

Paul.L wrote, "I can no longer waste my time discussing things with you if you cannot stick with the subject."

Why is the above question, as an example, not relevant to the subject? It a direct response to your statements which I quoted immediately before that question.

It seems to me that you are running away with your tail between you legs, because you have put your foot in your mouth and because I have shown that the case you are arguing is not supported by the evidence.

Paul.L wrote, "My views are fairly standard. You can read views like them in the Australian (this countries most respected newspaper) every day."

Yeh, right. Like support for privatisation of NSW's electricty assets which enjoys such widespread support from the NSW public.

Dagget,

Just the fact that you can't tell when you are going off on a tangent is illuminating.

Whether Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill had a right to carve up half the world is irrelevant to our central question which is " Was the Soviet Union ever expansionist.

If you can, I'd like to see just how exactly you think your question is relevant to that debate?

You say >> " I have shown that the case you are arguing is not supported by the evidence.

You have three times now ignored the evidence that I have brought forward regarding Brezhnev and Kruschev because they don't fit your position. Just blanked it. In fact you refuse to even discuss that topic and instead you have seen fit to bring up issues like Rumsfeld and the lightwater reactors, Who did the most violence in Korea, And whether I support the actions of the US during the cold war. The fact is none of these things are relevant to the debate, yet you cannot help throwing them in.

I think what happened is you didn't really think this all the way through, and you'd much rather talk about the excesses of the West.

Well just as soon as you acknowledege that the Soviet Union was expansionist during some of its existence we can move on to other things.

As you clearly don't read the Australian I can tell you that their editorial team do support the privatisation of electricity in NSW. Have a look.

They've been scathing of not just the labor idiots, but of the spinelss opposition as well. And before you trot out your figures again let me just say that this IS a debate which was shaped by the unions and by the opposition and the poor handling of the gov't. If it had been done properly there would not have been 70% opposition.

Paul.L,

I thought that the central question was:

"Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?"

It is not:

"Was the Soviet Union ever expansionist?"

... or, for that, matter:

"Was the United Kingdom ever expansionist?"

... or:

"Was the United States ever expansionist?"

... or:

"Was Germany ever expansionist?"

... or:

"Was Japan ever expansionist?"

etc.

I ask again the question that you continue to dodge:

"Why did Stalin have any more right to entrust the fate of the people of Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, etc. to Churchill than did Churchill have to entrust the fate of the people of Eastern Europe to Stalin?"

I asked this question because you have shown an astonishing disdain for the principle of self-determination. In your moral Universe, but not mine, a crime against self-determination by one of the two (or three) contending camps in the world justifies a crime by another.

Hence, in your moral universe, Stalin's crimes inside the Soviet Union and his treatment of Eastern Europe somehow gives a moral blank cheque to Western governments to commit whatever crime they deem necessary against any popular political movement in their "spheres of influence" - Greece, Yugoslavia, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Guatemala, Iran, etc.

If you had read my posts you would see that I don't reciprocate and don't attempt to excuse the crimes of Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev etc, by raising the crimes of Hitler or various other Western capitalist countries.

Dagget,

If you look back at all my posts which you were supposedly rebutting you will notice that the topic for discussion between you and I has been " Was the Soviet Empire expanionist ever", the whole time. I haven't strayed from that subject because I believe your statement is preposterous and entirely indefensible.

Again, I don't care whether you haven't reciprocated by pointing out Hitler's mistakes. IT COULD NOT BE MORE IRRELEVANT.

If you want to finish at least one of the debates you start, rather than moving on to some other topic when it gets tough, I'll be very happy to answer your silly question. But I'm not interseted in changing the subject every time you realise you made a mistake.

BTW, After we finish with your ridiculous suggestion that the "Soviet Union was not ever expansionist" you can then tell me where exactly I have "shown an astonishing disdain for the principle of self-determination" which is a total fiction of your hyperactive mind.

Furthermore, I have not ever suggested that "Stalin's crimes inside the Soviet Union and his treatment of Eastern Europe somehow gives a moral blank cheque to Western governments "

Paul.L,

The topic I planned to discuss on this forum was "Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?"

No-one insisted that you join in this discussion if that is not what you wanted to discuss. If you had wanted to discuss whether or not the Soviet Union, the US, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, the ancient Hittites, the Klingons or the Tralfamadorians were ever expansionist, you were perfectly free to start such a discussion forum.

I started the forum because I judged that the posts I was making were getting off topic and because the question I asked happened to be one I have wanted to write about for some time.

Now, to go, in my view, slightly off-topic, in regard to the question: was the Soviet Union expansionist?

Well, I suppose it was, in a sense, and so too were a number of other big powers on the globe at the time including the U.S. However the Soviet Union was not expansionist in the same sense that U.S. cold war propagandists tried to depict it.

It was clearly not interested in expanding into Indochina in 1954 and the same is true of the other examples I have given. As for countries in Eastern Europe and, momentarily, in Afghanistan it was a different matter.

Whilst I don't excuse the often extremely poor treatment of Eastern Europe, I think it should be acknowledged that the Soviet union had legitimate concerns about its own security, particularly when it faced an adversary that had on several occasions threatened to use nuclear weapons to get its own way, including in Iran in 1947 and in Korea in 1953. As it had already used nuclear weapons on Japan and had devastated North Korea (as well as, prior to that, Germany and Japan) with conventional bombs, I think the wariness of the rulers of the Soviet Union was not altogether unreasonable.

Daggett,

It’s great to see that you can be thoughtful and measured when you want to be.

Without attempting to excuse anything, it must be acknowledged that the Soviet Empire under Stalin and the other strong men had a fervent desire to see Communism defeat Capitalism, preferably under Soviet stewardship.

The KGB penetration of nearly every foreign gov’t and intelligence services had far more than a purely defensive focus.

You talk about the Vietnam war as though it were a purely local affair that America intervened in. I wonder where you think the trucks, artillery, machine guns, AK47’s etc came from to support North Vietnams war effort? North Vietnam didn’t manufacture the T-54 tanks that crashed through the palace gates. Chinese involvement in the war dates back to 1950 when they sent advisors to help the communist forces. Between 1965 and 1970, 320,000 Chinese soldiers served in North Vietnam.

You say >> “It was clearly not interested in expanding into Indochina in 1954”

Actually that’s not right. The Russians and Chinese felt that without the partioning the US would have immediately become involved and this would have damaged the fledgling communist regime. The breathing space that the creation of North Vietnam allowed was instrumental in the final victory for the communist forces. It fit well into Mao’s 3 stage process of revolution.

“ Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, fear[ed] U.S. intervention in Indochina and another Korea-style conflict with the United States, urged the DRV to accept a negotiated settlement and the temporary partition of Vietnam at the 17th parallel.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#cite_ref-138

You say >> “and had devastated North Korea (as well as, prior to that, Germany and Japan) with conventional bombs … “

This entirely ignores the massive successes of the Soviet Army during the war against Hitler and its offensive/defensive capabilities. If you just look at a map of the Soviet sphere during the cold war you would see that it was free world forces and not the Soviets who were in any danger from conventional arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cold_war_europe_military_alliances_map_en.png

Furthermore the Soviets very quickly achieved nuclear parity as well.

"Yeah Ludwig, international communists everywhere are enormously invigorated? What pompous nonsense."

Crikey Paul, that's nice. We've had a number of exchanges on this forum, amicably...and the first time you have any disagreement you have no qualms about casting any goodwill aside...or any tact, politeness, decency, etc. Are you just completely intolerant of views different to your own, or of those who express them?

Top effort mate.

Now, OF COURSE democracy is severely compromised if those who espouse it see fit to operate outside of democratic principles when it suits them....in ways as significant as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in particular. OF COURSE opposition forced are invigorated (or whatever word you might choose) by such actions. OF COURSE the push for democracy is gravely undermined by such actions.

How on earth could you argue otherwise?

Ludwig,

I must apologize. You're right, I could definitely be more polite.

So, I agree that you are right when you say that bending the rules to defend freedom is counterproductive and provides the enemy with propoganda. It's a bit like f@cking for Jesus, if you take my meaning.

I suppose what I most take issue with is the enormous part of your claim. I would argue that in AlQaeda and the other global jihadis we have an implacable enemy who, prior to a shot being fired in anger, already had an olympic supply of invigoration, through their steadfast religous beliefs.

I think that you would agree that in war time, sometimes it is very difficult to know where exactly the line should be drawn. (Abu Ghraib is NOT one of those times).

I am thinking more about the combat leader who needs to make a real-time decision on whether to bomb a known insurgent position. He needs to weigh up the fact that the particular insurgent he is targetting might be responsible for the deaths of thousands of people if he is let go; against the possibility of innocent casuaties. This is a very real scenario and combat leaders make those decisions every day, sometimes with the whole picture and they have very limited time to do so.

Dagget,

You say >> "I think ... the Soviet union had legitimate concerns about its own security,"

I think the Soviet Union did have concerns for its own security. At the same time I think you could acknowledge that the US and Europe also had entirely valid security concerns. The Soviet tank armies, poised to flow down the Fulda Gap on the central plains of Germany were only going to encounter the US and Allied forces as speed bumps on their way to the french coast. This scared the bejesus out of NATO planners.

And then the Russians decided they were going to place missiles in Cuba and force a naval blockade of the island in order to do so.

Paul.L,

Actually, I consider that I have been "thoughtful and measured" all along.

---

Paul.L wrote, "The Russians and Chinese felt that without the partitioning the US would have immediately become involved ..."

Without partitioning, there would have been elections up and down the country which the Vietnamese Communist Party would have easily won, as every credible observer was predicting.

What possible reason would the U.S. have had to invade other than not liking the expected election outcome?

Paul.L continued, "... and this would have damaged the fledgling communist regime. The breathing space that the creation of North Vietnam allowed was instrumental in the final victory for the communist forces. It fit well into Mao’s 3 stage process of revolution."

Such a brilliant strategy! Having millions more killed over the next two decades and their country ravaged in order to reconquer what had already conquered.

Dagget,

There is certainly some truth in your statement that the US was not prepared to let Vietnam become communist, even if that was what the Vietnamese themselves wanted.

The US, and many other countries rightfully feared that if they did not oppose the communist expansion in South East Asia many other coutries would also fall under the communist banner. The fact that this didn't happen cannot be used to suggest that it could not have happened. Massive effort and funding went into the fight in Vietnam. It would surely have gone elsewhere if Vietnam had simply changed hands in 1954.

You seem to be totally unable to accept the fact that communism has been a disaster everywhere it was implemented. That many people, in America in particular, felt that communism was a return to feudal times and a loss of the freedom of the peoples who were under its control.

you say >> "Without partitioning, there would have been elections up and down the country which the Vietnamese Communist Party would have easily won"

Among the viet minh in general there were at least as many nationalists, as communists. The suggestion that the victoy belonged to the communists alone is not correct. However, I do accept that the communist party probably would have won at that time.

The most important thing you are ignoring is the fact that the communist countries, once under such a system were not only brutal and corrupt, but didn't allow the people to change their minds about their system of gov't at a later stage.

Vietnam has been a communist country ever since 1975. Can you honestly suggest that the people of Vietnam, were they given the chance to vote, would have known they were voting to allow a single party to rule them for the next 40 years? Can you deny that the Vietnamese would have voted out the communist gov't at some stage IF they had the chance to do so.

TBC

Paul.L, you are attempting to raise the spectre of totalitarian communist rule to excuse the role of the U.S. in helping to prevent free elections in 1954 and its destructive war against Indo-China, just as he previously attempted to excuse Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Salvadore Allende in Chile.

To partly cross-post from the forum "Tet lives on - forty years later" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974&page=0#106355
Marilyn Young's "The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990"(1991) gives a glimpse of just what might have been possible if the Vietnamese Communist Party had not been forced by their supposed 'allies' to agree to the partition of their country. She cites Joseph Alsop, who visited the "palm-hut state" in the Mekong Delta in the south in 1954:

"I would like to be able to report--I had hoped to be able to
report--that ... I saw all the signs of misery and oppression
that have made my visits to East Germany like nightmare journeys
to 1984. But it was not so." ... Alsop described an idyllic
landscape of emerald rice fields, tiny villages along canal
banks thick with mangoes, palms, palms, bamboo, papaya. Here,
during the war against the French, the Viet Minh established a
"strong self-contained state, with a loyal population of nearly
2 million, a powerful regular army, a complete civil
administration, and all other apparatus of a established
governmental authority."

Alsop's fellow passengers confirmed his observations, expressing
their contentment and boasting of the Viet Minh victory over the
French. Reluctantly, he believed them, for "their was no hint
of the bleak, guarded, totalitarian atmosphere, ... that I
imagined I would find." ... "At first," Alsop confessed, "it was
difficult for me, as it is for any Westerner, to conceive of a
Communist government's genuinely 'serving the people.' I could
hardly imagine a Communist government that was also a popular
government and almost a democratic government. But this is just
the sort of government the palm-hut state actually was. ...".
(p55 of "The Vietnam Wars").

The original article was Joseph Alsop, "A Man in a Mirror," The New Yorker, 25 June, 1955.

(tobecontinued)

Had there been elections, there is every likelihood that all of Vietnam would have become much like the "palm-hut state", and that Vietnam would have become, in South East Asia, "the example of a successful elected Marxist government" that Kissinger was later to to fear in Chile. (see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0205-07.htm http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#44475) Just as Kissinger feared that Allende's government "would surely have an impact upon---and even precedent value for---other parts of the world, especially Italy" the U.S. rulers would, no doubt have feared that other people in South East Asia, especially Indonesia would want to emulate the example of Vietnam.

However the "palm-hut state" was dismantled under the 1954 Geneva agreement and the 2 million people in that region were forced to submit to the authority of a corrupt and unelected regime and the promises made to them that elections would be held in 1956 were dishonoured.

---

The totalitarian communist spectre, similar to that which Paul.L is now trying to convey, was what was successfully used only 11 years later, to make one of one of the other great crimes of the 20th century, only a few hundred kilometres to our north acceptable, to Australian and world public opinion.

That crime was the massacre of at least 500,000 (1,000,000 by some estimates) members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Whole villages deemed sympathetic to the PKI were wiped out. Rivers ran red with blood of the victims. Woodcarvers, deemed PKI sympathisers suffered badly and for a long time afterwards, woodcarvings were difficult to obtain in Jakarta. I strongly recommend that everyone able to download and listen to mp3 files to get hold of a copy of "Accomplices in Atrocity. The Indonesian killings of 1965" at http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/current/audioonly/hht_20080907.mp3 (25MB) linked to from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/hindsight/stories/2008/2356330.htm do so.

It is well worth listening to. It provides evidence that both the Australian and U.S. governments colluded with the Indonesian military's plans to wipe out the third largest Communist Party in the world, few of whom had weapons with which to defend themselves.

Thanks Paul.

"I suppose what I most take issue with is the enormous part of your claim. I would argue that in AlQaeda and the other global jihadis we have an implacable enemy who, prior to a shot being fired in anger, already had an olympic supply of invigoration..."

Sure they did. But with a concerted and disciplined push from American and allied forces, that invigoration could be worn down. But not with events like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, which have created a great deal of consternation across the democratic world and very clearly greatly assisted the cause of AlQuaeda and its associates and like-minded entities.

These massively antidemocratic happenings also greatly threaten support for the fight against 'terrorism' from western countries.

I mean, there is the utmost imperative that fundamental democratic and humanitarian principles be upheld by those fighting for a democratic world.

As far as decisions on the battlefield or in the heat of the moment go, I don't see an issue. Those decisions need to be made, often very quickly, some of which will mean 'collateral' damage and the death of civilians. I don't think that they run against democratic principles.

Anyway, I think we fundamentally agree. Cheers

Dagget,

You have again ignored almost every question I asked. I don’t need to raise the spectre of totalitarian rule. Its historical fact.

You say >> “Had there been elections, there is every likelihood that all of Vietnam would have become much like the "palm-hut state", and that Vietnam would have become, in South East Asia”

You have indulged yourself in what if’s, which at the best of times is pointless. But this is a debate dagget. Your quotes from Alsop are so far from relevant it’s not funny. I can state with confidence that the Vietnamese people would be a lot better off today if the communists had lost the war. But there is no way of knowing what might have happened. What we do know is what type of gov’t the Vietnamese communists implemented after they won the war. A totalitarian communist state. So much for your palm hut paradise nonsense.

For all your statements about the US subverting democracy, you fail to acknowledge that the communists you are attempting to apologize for, crushed democracy and wrote off the will of the people as bourgeoisie.

You say >> “"the example of a successful elected Marxist government" that Kissinger was later to to fear in Chile.”

What?? ?? Allende was a massive failure. He didn’t have the support of the judiciary. He refused to obey or enforce 7000 Supreme Court rulings. Inflation in 1973 was 508%. Kissinger wasn’t afraid Allende was going to be successful. Allende took money personally from the KGB. He agreed to their involvement in reorganizing Chiles military and intelligence forces. Kissinger feared Soviet Expansionism and he was right to. Just look at Cuba.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement

Paul.L,

By your logic any political party deemed 'Marxist' should not be allowed to participate in any election since their winning office automatically lead to the establishment of 1930's style gulag socialism.

You dismiss out of hand clear testimony from a person who was clearly not predisposed to supporting 'communism' that a 'communist' state established during the course of the war against the French worked very well and enjoyed the loyalty and support of the people in that region.

Instead, you maintain that the people South Vietnam would have been better off if the Americans had done whatever was necessary to defeat Communism.

How many more lives than were already lost do you think that would have required, Paul.L? How many more bombs would you have rained down on Indo-China if you were in Kissinger's shoes? How many more villages would you have destroyed in order to 'save' them?

Whilst the government that emerged from the war clearly leaves a lot to be desired, it has made utter nonsense of the cold war propaganda that you are now repeating of it being abominably evil and demonic. Their human rights record clearly leaves for dead the human rights record of the former corrupt South Vietnamese dictatorship, not to mention the United States.

A lot of the problems that the Government of Vietnam faces I would have thought were the consequence of that devastating war, the subsequent war to rid neighbouring Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge and subsequent invasion from China and UN economic embargoes.

Whilst I realise that nothing will shake you from your conviction that any political forces, who have ever worn the label 'communist', are sufficiently evil to warrant even the unbelievably extreme means that the U.S. employed to defeat them in Indo-China, Korea and Indonesia, I think that others might recognise, as Alsop did, that, if the Vietnamese had been left alone to determine their own fate in 1954, they would have been vastly better off today.

As for your anti-Allende propaganda, I don't think one claimed gift of $30,000 from the Soviet Union in 1971 the makes him a Soviet puppet. Had you read the words in that Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement
"In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.[34]"

?

Hardly a totalitarian communist dictator in the making, I would have thought.

Clearly Chile suffered from a capital strike towards the end of Allende's rule, but if Kissinger, of all people, had judged Allende to be an example of a "successful Marxist Government" that people in other parts of the world would willingly want to emulate, then that's good enough for me.

Why isn't that good enough for you, Paul.L?