A question about Viet Nam

[Design8edGrouch]

In the Spring of 1966, I clearly remember my 8th grade history teacher telling the class that our efforts in Viet Nam were important because of tin. (That's right, the metal as in tin can, tin foil). He said that it was vital to our economy. And we had to protect the tin. By 9th grade, the official story was the treat imposed by the Domino theory. (If we allow one Asian country to fall under the threat of Communism, then soon they will all fall.) I have googled "Viet Nam and tin" but tin must also be a VietNamese word because I got thousands of hits, mostly in VietNamese.

Now for my question--Does anyone else remember this?

[Lindsay]

1. Yup, I remember.

Try bauxite instead of tin...as I recall, that's the raw material.

[Warpy]

2. No, and I was against the war in 1962

...a precocious brat, standing silent vigil with the Quakers.

I think everybody had a pet theory about why the US was interfering in the final gasp of what was clearly an anticolonial war. They finally trotted out the idiotic Domino Theory to placate the morons who needed something simplistic to wrap their numb skulls around.

That "tin" theory is just one of many. Tin isn't that big a deal as far as strategic metals go, and isn't in that short a supply. Tin cans are madee of steel,tin foil of aluminum. The only folks still using tin in cookware are the French, as far as I know, to coat the inside of the copper pots so favored to hang on one's ceiling for show.

The truth is that it was just a cascade of stupid policy decisions begun by Truman, who supported the French and their imposition of a corrupt puppet government as they bugged out, Eisenhower who sent the first military "advisors," Kennedy, who sent the first troops to protect the military "advisors," and the torrent of bloodyminded idiocy from then on.

[Design8edGrouch]

9. While you may be right about it being one of many reasons to

escalate our involvement in an unjust war, you have forgotten that aluminum had not yet come into its own. There was not an efficient way to make the ore into usable metal and plastics had not yet arrived. Tin was an important lightweight alternative to the heavier metals such as steel and bronze and many of the things once made of tin are now made of plastics.

[HereSince1628]

3. No...but I heard about oil off-shore (Spratley or Pratley Is.?)

And the Vietnam cultural map that we had in my junior high school also suggested that latex was important--though by then rubber was in many things being replaced by plastics, nylon, vinyl etc...

[NoPasaran]

4. It must not have been all that important

Since we seem to have survived somehow or other.

[LeahMira]

5. No, but...

There was also oil involved.

http://www.cpexhibition.com/vnoffshore/

[bpilgrim]

6. google... vietnam, rubber, tungsten and tin

President Eisenhower on Vietnam
... is now known as Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam--as the ... area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. ... There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on ...
www.uiowa.edu/~c030162/Common/Handouts/POTUS/IKE.html

and so it goes...




peace

[kcwayne]

7. I don't remember hearing about tin, it was our old friend - Oil

I remember hearing that the coast off Viet Nam was rich in oil reserves, and that we had to protect our access so Shell would be richer. There was a numerology progression that used various numbers relevant to current day things associated with the government (you made them up to fit the formula) that when entered into a (then new) digital calculator would spell out ShellOil when you turned the calculator upside down.

But the main argument put forth was the Domino Theory, as glorified in the John Wayne movie "The Green Berets". In your face propaganda that was (and still is) cherished by idiots with an IQ less than a bee fart.

[IronLionZion]

33. Shell is Dutch

it's not American. I doubt the US would invade Vietnam for the Netherlands to get oil.

But yes the South China sea is loaded with oil.

[kcwayne]

41. I know it is Dutch

but most people, especially in 1970 did not know that, and had they known it, it would be irrelevant. Shell had/has stations all over the US. They are a highly visible supplier of gas in the US.

When the guy on the street thinks about an oil company, he thinks about the local gas station, and Shell was a dominant marketer of gas back then.

My point was not to pick on Shell in particular, the reason the Shell Oil worked is that upside down numbers on those old calculator displays would spell Shell Oil (71077345), but wouldn't spell Standard, another popular brand.

[IrateCitizen]

8. It's spelled out in "A People's History of the United States"

A Kennedy Administration official was quoted at an address before high-ranking members of the Chamber of commerce, in which he openly acknowledged that involvement in Vietnam was to maintain complete US access to Vietnam's resources of tin, rubber and oil.

The "domino theory" was the story used to sell the misadventure to the American public.

[Design8edGrouch]

11. Thank you all

I have mentioned this off and on over the years, but I seemed to have been the only one paying attention that day. No one I know had ever heard of it. It was important to me because, it was my first inkling into the truth that the government may offer reasons that sound "noble"--the "Domino Theory" or WMD but use them to cover something more sinister like greed.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. read "Resource Wars" by Michael T. Klare all wars have always been about

resources...since the dawn of man...water, food, oil, etc...

Really interesting analysis of resources reserves and potential conficts. Michael T. Klare seems to be right on target. Religious and cultural differences might give motivation for wars, but the underlining cause will be control over increasing scare resources. You can really see how dependent our country and others are the resources of others to keep the lights on and economy going. Pretty scary.

[K-W]

15. Thats a horribly incomplete analysis.

Resources are very important and have played a huge role in the history of global politics, but they arent some mother of all causes. The mystery of vietnam was always that there were no major resources at stake. It was the product of politics.

[markses]

16. Correct - Vietnam was not about resources

The attempt to impute (after the fact) a rational basis for what was, in essence, a bizarre affective hysteria is, in short, wrong. This whole business about the Vietnam resources - or even "geographical" importance is nonsense. Did these serve as a crutch? of course. But what was really behind Vietnam was something far more dangerous - a full-out hysteria, followed by intransigent pride. It was an affective war first and foremost.

[saigon68]

34. True

This analysis is correct

[IrateCitizen]

17. Then how do you refute the assertion I provided above...

... straight out of the mouth of a Kennedy administration official to high-ranking members of the Chamber of Commerce?

If you'd like, I could pull out the entire excerpt when I go home and provide it for you, as it is quite illuminating.

[K-W]

18. There were many reasons for veitnam involvement stated by many people

These reasons applied to different times and different events.

As I said in another post, early on in US intervention in Indochina, resources were a stated issue. They disappeared from official explenations when the war escalated. Resources like tin were an issue with early indochina involvement, but they were not the only motivator, nor the strongest, nor can they explain escalation.

[bpilgrim]

20. the main one being resources like ALL colonial wars

why do you think the japanese were there in SE ASIA and who were they trying to replace?

the escalation is EASY to explain we didn't want to LOSE.
look what is happening in iraq.

peace

[K-W]

21. Why are you desperately trying to oversimplify the conflict.

It sure would be nice if the veitnam war could be explained solely through resources and saving face. Nice, but not accurate. The thing that differs Vietnam and the US from most colonial/imperial wars is that vietnam did NOT have the level of resources to justify the level of involvement we chose.

Resources were a reason for early indochina involvement, which is very significant because without the early involvement, the late involvement wouldnt have happened, but after we got over there and things started rolling, resources ceased to be an issue. Therefore, they are a factor, but are far from the most important or root factor.

Resources have been one of the top motivators all time for foriegn policy, granted, but in vietnam they cannott shoulder the burden of explenation.

[bpilgrim]

22. just stating some of the main objectives... the GOLDEN RULE

he who hath the gold maketh the RUKES.

rember wwII? another resource war.
look at iraq.

very dangerous and OFTEN driving factor of most wars.

it's all about bidness... same as it ever was

peace

[K-W]

24. WWII is also a really bad example.

Clearly your worldview isnt changing, it looks to me like massive oversimplification in order to have the intellectually easy position of everything boiling down to resources.

I think things are a tad bit more complex, I suppose this is where we can just agree to disagree.

[bpilgrim]

26. doesn't match up well with the CARTOON WORLD VIEW

i know...

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[K-W]

27. I find your atttitude interesting.

Considering the fact that you are offering an intellectually much easier analysis than I am. Its really easy just to pretend that all world conflict can be explained by resources. When explenations are that easy it gives you lots of free time.

Unfortunately the world rarely follows such simplistic models. Resources are very very very important and are involved in some way in almost all conflicts, but they cannott shoulder the immense load of explenation that you haphazerdly dump on them.

[bpilgrim]

42. i never said all

MOST, there is a difference.

i am not offering ANY analysis, too busy... besides theres google, just posting links at most that back up the charge, more then what you've deigned to offer.

'Resources are very very very important and are involved in some way in almost all conflicts'

see we agree... chill :hi:

peace

[IrateCitizen]

30. WRT the Pacific theater, WWII is an EXCELLENT example

The war between Japan and the US was, at its essence, the last war between colonial powers. Japan's impetus for attacking the United States was not to take over the US, but rather to expel them from the Pacific in order to create a Japanese Pacific Empire, bringing all of the Pacific Rim (and the resources that went with it) under Japanese control.

[K-W]

31. Facts right, conclusion not.

Your facts are dead on, but it does not logically follow that the entire conflict can be explained through resources. Resources were an important factor, they were not however the chief or only factor.

[IrateCitizen]

37. Resources are a factor intertwined with all others

The Japanese wanted ostensibly to spread their "superior culture" throughout the rest of the Pacific Rim, as well. Having taken a course in Japanese History from the Meiji period through WWII, I am well aware of this.

However, lack of adequate resources would not enable them to do this.

It's very similar to the idea of "manifest destiny" here in the United States -- especially toward the end of the 19th century when we began to grow restless for overseas expansion. Officials of the day saw it as our "God-given right" to bring "civilization and Christianity" to the people of Latin America and the Phillippines -- but they also saw it as our "destiny" to dominate the markets of the Pacific all the way to China as well. To do this takes vast amounts of resources.

Resources to maintain empire are needed to support the other aims of extending it. As such, it is impossible to extricate resources from any part of the equation, whether it be direct control over those resources or strategic positioning to maintain dominant influence over their control.

[K-W]

38. Exactly, we agree totally

In various ways, resources are an intergral factor in all foriegn and domestic policies. I am arguing against the argument that you can discount other explenations because resources explain it all.

[bpilgrim]

19. also see... What Uncle Sam Really Wants

Noam Chomsky

Copyright © 1993
Table of Contents

* Editor's forward
* Source material

The main goals of US foreign policy

1. Protecting our turf
2. The liberal extreme
3. The "Grand Area"
4. Restoring the traditional order
5. Our commitment to democracy
6. The threat of a good example
7. The three-sided world

Devastation abroad

1. Our Good Neighbor policy
2. The crucifixion of El Salvador
3. Teaching Nicaragua a lesson
4. Making Guatemala a killing field
5. The invasion of Panama



6. Inoculating Southeast Asia
7. The Gulf War
8. The Iran/contra cover-up
9. The prospects for Eastern Europe
10. The world's rent-a-thug

Brainwashing at home

1. How the Cold War worked
2. The war on (certain) drugs
3. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
4. Socialism, real and fake
5. The media

The Future

1. Things have changed
2. What you can do
3. The struggle continues
4. Notes

Cover | Archive | ZNet

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

gives a very good over view of our foreign policy since wwII.

:hi:

peace

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. bpilgrim>>>>>smooches

:yourock:

[bpilgrim]

43. i think i'm gonna like it here ;-)

:loveya:

peace

[Mountainman]

10. I have always thought the war was about access to the oil off shore

The oil reserves were either going to go to the US or to Russia. When the North allied with Russia we had to go to war to prevent Russia from gaining access to the oil in the South China Sea. As it is, they now have access to it I think.

The war was fought for nothing since we are now about in the same place we were before the war. All those millions of lives lost. All those millions of lives of those who took part that were adversely effected in some way, all the lost opportunity all the hate and anger for nothing.

[Another Bill C.]

12. The propaganda films

I saw in the Navy said that if we didn't stop the North Vietnamese as many as 50,000 people would be killed in the Communist takeover. In the end our losses alone were 58,000.

[K-W]

14. At one time tin was a factor, oil really never was.

Tin, among other natural resources was an early motivator for the US to get involved in Indochina. It did however become a non issue when escalation occurred. So it does play a role in the story, but not an extremely important role. When escalation started it was all about domino theory and saving face.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that the US even knew about the oil when things started and it was not a significant factor at any point. Remember, during that time oil was still very plentiful and available.

[bpilgrim]

23. 'domino theory and saving face' is the BS propaganda they served up

when folks started waking up and asking questions... fortunately it ain't taking as long this time, maybe we can prevent the slaughter of 3 million people.

thank GORE he 'invented' the internet.

peace

[K-W]

25. Wrong wrong wrong.

The people in washington actually believed in domino theory and saving face. Take off your tin-foil hat.

[bpilgrim]

39. sure

many of them drank the kool-aide doesn't mean they weren't seeking TREASURE in SE ASIA just like TODAY cept in the ME.

yall can believe * got a personal grudge against sadam, he is whacked, they want armagendon, whatever, but the folks call'n the shots got their EYES on the PRIZE better believe it.



peace

[K-W]

40. They werent seeking treasure.

To the extent that resources did play into the war in vietnam, it certainly wasnt in a treasure seeking manner. It wasnt that vietnam had resources, they really didnt.

In actuality the resource argument is tied to the domino effect. The idea that if the domino effect happened, we would lose other nations in southeast asia that had more resources.

But policymakers were far more concerned with saving face and anti-communism than the were with protecting certain tin producing countries from falling into China's sphere of influence.

[bpilgrim]

44. your right... SECURING TREASURE

is more like it or rather TRY'N TO not to mention sending a msg.

it all goes hand in hand, as you readily admit, so chill ;->

peace

[kcwayne]

29. But in the late 60's and early 70's there was fear about oil resources

running out. Hence, when the OPEC embargo hit us in 1973 there was a percieved truth to the idea that oil was in short supply, and people accepted the oil shortage as a truism, which it wasn't.

There was alot of discussion about the reason we continued to fight the war was to preserve the rights to the oil that supposedly was off shore. The government wasn't saying it was about oil (just like now), but we thought the government was lying, and that it was about large oil companies coercing foreign policy to maintain their business interests.

Vietnam and Oil

Herbert Hoover, later to become President of the United States did a study that showed that one of the world's largest oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right off French Indo-China, now known as Vietnam.
- Denny, Ludwell, We Fight for Oil, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1928.


"US analyst Ludwell Denny in his book "We Fight for Oil" noted the domestic oil shortage and says international diplomacy had failed to secure any reliable foreign sources of oil for the United States. Fear of oil shortages would become the most important factor in international relations, Denny said.

"That empire in Southeast Asia is the last major resource area outside the control of any one of the major powers of the globe....I believe that the condition of the Vietnamese people, and the direction in which their future may be going, are at this stage secondary, not primary." (Senator McGee, D-Wyo., in the U.S. Senate, Feb. 17, 1965)

In a 1965 speech in Asia, Richard Nixon argued in favor of bombing North Vietnam to protect the "immense mineral potential" of Indonesia, which he later referred to as "by far the greatest prize in the southeast Asian area."

To protect its prizes, the US eventually killed over four million people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos between 1965 and 1975. In South Vietnam alone, the war resulted in a million widows and 879,000 orphans. It destroyed 9000 out of 15,000 hamlets, almost 40,000 square miles of farmland and 18,750 square miles of forest."

[K-W]

32. But the vietnam war far predates the 60's and 70's

Oil was not such a big deal when US-Indochina involvement started. And ive seen no evidence that policy makers were aware of or considered the oil.

[kcwayne]

36. Then you didn't read my post which points out the even Hoover knew about

the oil. The Vietnam war as far as US force introduction certainly does not predate the 60's and 70's.

In the early 60's all I remember about the rationale for the war was the domino theory. But by 1970, I believed that we were continuing to kill millions of people when no one thought it was a good idea because of the oil. Neanderthals still mouthed the domino theory in 1970, but it was rare to find someone with any intelligence and observational powers that said so. By 1971 when Nixon started campaigning on getting us out of the war, it was clear that domino was dead.

Oil companies were scrambling around the globe in pursuit of new fields by the mid 60's, so it was clearly an important issue, both in policy, and in living standards.

[Mrs. Venation]

35. Actually, It Was President Eisenhower

who first articulated the "domino theory" regarding southeast Asia. He also specifically addressed tin and tungsten as desireable resources from that geographic area.

The President's News Conference of April 7, 1954

Q. Robert Richards, Copley Press:

Mr. President, would you mind commenting on the strategic importance of Indochina to the free world? I think there has been, across the country, some lack of understanding on just what it means to us.

A. The President.

You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk about such things.

First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs.

Then you have the possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world.

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.

Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on.

Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses.

But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people.

Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand.

It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go -- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live.

So, the possible consequences of the loss are just incalculable to the free world.