What happened in Vietnam after the Fall of Saigon?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

I've been googling for about an hour now, and I find lots on the chaos during the last few months of the war, but nothing of the months after. They used the same talking points then... "we can't leave or there will be chaos". Well, and when we did finally leave, we didn't even give money or weapons to the people we left behind to fend for themselves.

Edumacate me DU. What happened immediately after? :shrug:

[robinlynne]

1. Those who helped or supported the americans were killed.

[kurth]

8. Not true

Most of them, including military officers and high-ranking officials in the old South Vietnamese government, were sent to "reeducation camps" in the hinterland. Most returned to their families within a couple of years.

[Longhorn]

15. I work with an officer of the S. Vietnamese army who spent ten years

in one of those camps. He's the sweetest man anyone could know and brilliant in mathematics, chemistry, and physics.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. So?He was a criminal in the eyes of the government

As an officer in the ARVN, he got off fairly easy in civil war terms.

Whether he spent ten years in a camp is also a question. Generally, officers spent anywhere from 6 months to 2 years, depending on rank.

[Big Pappa]

141. Criminal?

Wow.

[uppityperson]

9. Heartbreaking stuff happened to people who helped/supported or were thought to.

Edited to add that some were killed, higher ups were sent to "re-education camps".

[kurth]

20. "According to a knowledgeable American observer, the inmates faced hard labor, but only rarely

torture or execution."

http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/40.htm

[robinlynne]

26. Thank you guys. I posted without thinking.

[Warpy]

24. I know there was considerable violence against ethnic Chinese

and that many fled to refugee camps outside the country and/or became the infamous "boat people" who risked death in anything that would float to escape the country. I also know there was retaliation in the villages against anyone who was seen as a collaborator, and those people fled, too.

There was largely a news blackout right after the US left. What little we know wasn't pretty, but it never is. It was over quickly, though, and the country has been on the mend since then.

The "quickly" is the point. People who are sick to death of war are going to be motivated to end a power struggle at the end of it sooner rather than later.

One wonders how many of them might have survived and gotten through that ugly period right after the end of the war had Nixon been telling the truth about ending that war much sooner.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. That is absolutely false

The Red Cross called the transfer of sovereignty in the Republic of Vietnam less violent on collaborators than the liberation of France.

Enlisted were sent to re-education for 3 days. Three days. Officers were questioned for longer. Very few people were killed. There was no bloodbath to speak of.

The main issue was the ethnic Chinese of Cholon who had supported the Americans in large numbers and who were traditionally a merchant class vilified by the Vietnamese communists (not least because Vietnam had its own "race issues" with these ethnic groups, and the Hmong, etc.). These people make up the majority of the boat people who fled Vietnam over the next few years. I am NOT arguing that the Vietnamese communist government was perfect. It was despotic and bigoted and sometimes fairly brutal. And people were killed.

But for the most part, the transfer of power was far, far less violent than expected, and the most dire predictions did not even come close to materializing.

[Neshanic]

111. Good thing for you, you would of been unemployed doing take out.

Born in what 1972?

[alcibiades_mystery]

118. What does it matter when I was born

Facts are facts whether you're born in 1958, 1972, 1920, or 2006. A fact is a fact.

So your whole "You weren't there" argument is silly and childish.

[Big Pappa]

142. Have you got a link to this?

3 days reeducation? That sounds like BS to me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

143. Here ya go

http://www.cincypost.com/news/2000/viet042700.html

One man who had worked for an American advisory team was in DaNang, where there was virtually no resistance from South Vietnamese troops when the North Vietnamese Army moved in on March 29, 1975.

''I knew the war was over when I dropped my rifle,'' he said. ''The city was turned over to the NVA and nothing happened. They told all the former ARVN soldiers to come in and identify themselves.''

Although he was a middle-ranking sergeant, an E-8, he was treated gently.

''Enlisted men were sent to a seven-day re-education course,'' he said. ''Officers were sent to jail.''

After the war was over, it was hard for anyone to find a job, especially those who had fought for the south or who had worked for Americans.

I know three guys who were ARVN, now living in the United States. Though they had all been out of the army for a few years in April-May 1975, they were all ordered to report for re-education. They were each there for three days (the seven day course was apparently flexible). This was the vast majority of those "sent to the camps."

Sorry I don't have time to search through my files for more substantial documentation on that. I did most of this research when it was still a paper-based operation (:-)), and so I don't have links. There is an Amnesty International Report that says about the same, from 1979 if I remember correctly, so if you want to look for that, feel free.

Once again, let me be clear. There was a great deal of brutality after the war, and those in higher positions in the military and government, if they failed to escape, did not have a good time of it. I am no friend of the current regime in Vietnam. There were executions. There was torture. There were people sent to prison camps for many years. Absolutely. Was it widespread? In my research, I have seen nothing to indicate that it was. There were also significant debates in the North, in the PAVN, and in the NLF (especially among the political cadres) about the shape and policies of reconciliation, beginning fairly early and intensifying through 1974 and 1975. People actually discussed and debated what the reconciliation policies should be in order to smooth the transition! Gasp. The Vietnamese are people too, and maybe the communists even had good intentions for society. What a shocker. If you read the remainder of the article, you'll see the real oppression came from favoritism in work and social mobility, and general discrimination against the former regime and its proponents. That's quite real. The notion of widespread massacres in the South, however, is imaginary. It simply didn't happen.

If you read below, you'll find various statistics that purport large numbers killed in the camps. The vast majority of these statistics, as far as I can tell, are drawn from an extremely dubious series of studies by Jacqueline Desbarats and Karl Jackson, studies that have been exposed for bizarre statistical trickery and other ideological chicanery. Needless to say, these studies are cited widely by conservative groups and anti-communist Vietnamese exiles, though they have never been borne out by any reasonable empirical research, and have in fact been largely debunked on their methodology.

[Big Pappa]

144. Thanks

n/t

[Big Pappa]

145. 10 years! That is a lot of education.

''My father repaired aircraft at Tan Son Nhut,'' said one man who, like others in this report, will not be named. ''He was sent to three years at re-education. My uncle was an important man and he was sent to 10 years in Hanoi.'' It seems though this was not true for evryone.

http://www.cincypost.com/news/2000/viet042700.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. No, three days wasn't true of everybody, nor was three years

It's also a misnomer to call all the facilities "re-education camps." Some were plain old prisons. Of course, "re-education camp" sounds more sinister to the American ear (now), and less belligerent to the communist ear (then), so that's what we're left with. A large number of higher ups in the military and government were, indeed, deemed criminals and traitors by the new government, and were treated like criminals. There's no dispute about that.

[Big Pappa]

149. I see

certain skills or positions had a lot to do with how long you were sent away. I can tell you this, I would have been a babbling idiot who painted curbs if they were questioning me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

150. No, I think they really did line it up with extent of collaboration

I'll tell ya what. If I just took over a country, I wouldn't want a colonel of the defeated army wandering around unemployed either...:-)

[liberal N proud]

2. Vietnam became one

The country eventually stabilized under one rule and is now a thriving economy. Yes it is communist but thriving.

[Hosnon]

4. Blasphemy!

No country can survive - much less, thrive - without American-style Democracy. Liberal lies! Liberal lies!

[AngryAmish]

53. Economy is growing but is very far from western standards

It is "communist" just like China is.

[defendandprotect]

92. We still have an EMBARGO on Vietnam!!!!

And, basically, what happened is that the Domino Theory dropped dead --

[AngryAmish]

132. No we don't

We have normalized trade relations this last year.

Vietnam also joined the WTO this year.

We may not sell them weapons but that is about it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. brb kick!

the roomie had to pick RIGHT NOW to do the grocery run...

[DS1]

5. The Vietnamese finally got the government they wanted

As far as I recall, they wanted the Communists to come in, but of course the U.S. was dead-set against it. Typical cold-war bullshit, if you ask me.

[Fountain79]

6. Some are still suffering to this day...

Do a search on the Hmong people. They are still feeling the repercussions.

[kurth]

12. The Hmong are not Vietnamese

Most of them live in China, and they are a small ethnic minority in Vietnam as far as I know.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. And badly mistreated everywhere

Both before during and after the french and american colonial eras.

[paulk]

40. actually, the Hmong live all over SE Asia

and they are not the only indigeneous people discriminated against in Vietnam.

[Sparkly]

7. That was a very different situation from what's going on in Iraq.

It was clear one side would fall rapidly. The "we can't leave" was more about fear that Communism would spread everywhere.

Iraq is a more complex, multi-sided conflict, with stronger connections - in terms of influence and impact - with other countries in its region.

[razors edge]

18. Isn't that the same argument

the stay the course folks have against leaving Iraq?

Or do you feel the minorities in Iraq stand a chance against the "Islamo Fascists", that the capitalists in Vietnam never had?

[Sparkly]

22. I'm sorry -- which argument? nt

[razors edge]

25. Where you state...

"It was clear one side would fall rapidly. The "we can't leave" was more about fear that Communism would spread everywhere."

Replace "one side" with - more than one side, and "Communism" with - Islamo Fascism.

Not that I believe either argument,in respect to their spreading uncontrolled and becoming a threat to America, but they sound very close to being the same.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Well there was that but I remember clearly being told

that a bloodbath would ensue. It didn't. Not in vietnam. The mess in Cambodia, for which we were entirely responsible, was a different story. Ironically, it was the vietnamese intervention in cambodia that put an end to the hideous pol pot regime, over our objections. As our last hideous entanglement in the region we then turned around and backed the khmer rouge against the vietnamese backed regime and continued the civil war there for another ten years.

[CTyankee]

50. You are right. The Vietnamese never wanted their country to be divided

into North and South. That was done while they were a French colony. That's one of the major reasons for the original conflict with France that became our conflict.

The opposite seems to be true in Iraq. It was a "country" put together by the colonial powers and included such men as Winston Churchill. The forced unification as one nation only lasted while a strongman was in charge. Our invasion got rid of that.

I think there is bound to be a lot of fighting and bloodshed when we leave, unless we depart with something like a UN peacekeeping force in place after an agreement among the warring parties that each gets their "piece of the pie" is worked out. Even so, such agreements can often be fragile and fall apart.

Ugly is what it is.

[Diclotican]

68. Why should UN or someone else fix it??

Hello

Why in the world should UN or anyone else outside the US want, or willing to secure the horshit the US have maded in Iraq.. The rest of the world, innkluded the "irellevant europerian nations" who was the bacbone of the NATO alliance in the cold war warned and warned again against a war in Irak.. The german and the french get the blame an was played as fools over the american media...

Now, who was the fool in 2003 and from there to now my friend??...

Sorry, Iraq is a mess best suited for US to handle.. Europe and the rest of the world, was called irellevant when the goverment in US just had dislike for us.. Why should WE clean of the mess in Irak?..

And please dont came with the old story about the cold war when US singlehandly saved the world and ended the cold war.. We in Europe _know_ the story have a more interesting side to it then that!

Diclotican

[Viva_La_Revolution]

86. Welcome to DU!... But I don't think the US did anything 'singlehandedly'

It took all of us, working together to win that war.

[Diclotican]

95. Hello

Sir/Madam

It tok _all_ of us, not just US, but a lot of country, and a lot of peopole to "win that war". It was a long fight, and the ended rather peacefully If I am not forgotten my impression from 1989 and 1991 when in Kreml the USSR flag was lovered and the russian flag replaced the sovjet symbol... But I remember my parets was telling mee that you was witneing HISTORY when it happenend.. Both in East Germany in 1989 and in Russia in 1991..
And the interesting in this, is that I was in Bulgaria in 1989, and the whole country was "brewing" but you cant understand what was happening.. We as wisitors was never told the truth about was was happening in the country, or in the eastern block anyhow..

I am not in a place to fully understand the damage that the Administrations arrogance have manage to build up.. But My wield guess, is it wil take some time before old ties to US is repared, even as our politicans are trying to show "the guildet picture of friendsip" between US and Europe it is not that easy anymore.... It may bee that Europe want to protect themself, they dont want to be protected by US, who was telling them that they was irellevant, becouse of their lack of suport for a war, everyone with a education know was a hoax.. Even the former foreign minister, and Four Star General Collin Powell aknowleged that the reason for war, was a hoax, a great lie nothing more.. Verry Sad it was to late, and to little.. He know it was hoax, but desided not to retire, so he was able to talk to the world what he really know about the big, ugly fat lie.. It was a bigg rift in the NATO Alliance when US desided to go to war, regardless of the evidence, or the lack of evidence.. Now that the whole war is faling apart, and the horse is back to bite the owner in the famoust behind (the ass) the is little evidence that Europe want to be a part of doing the job that US dont want to do anymore.. US army is great fighters, but they do have a lack of manage the peace.. God know why they dont blow it in 1945, when they defeated Germany.. They managed there, to make a decent peace, and most peopole do se US more as friends, then as a enemy, even after the Allied have bombet Germany to a big ruin...
It may come becouse of the POST-WAR PLANING who was allmoust TWO YEARS OLD when Germany surrend?.. It may that they have over 4 million man in Westen part of germany in the postwar period. Who managed to hold the peace.. And prosecute the criminal who had doing war-crimes.. The "cangoro-kort" where Hussain was tried was pre-scripet from the beginning.. And everyone know, from the day one that Hussain was to be hang.. And hang he was too... He deserved it more than everyone in Iraq. But it was not a court I want to be in...

And now they want UN, and the Europe to help fix the mess in Iraq.. Forget it first and last.. That are not coming to happening anytime soon.. Maybee after the "boy king" are out of office in 2009, but not before... And the next administration have to fix a LOT of things becouse the big europeran nation want to do a thing.. We dont hate US, but the most europeran are extremely disepointed about the US and the way they have treated theyr Key allied in Europe.. It wil not be forget anytime soon, what the Administration have tried to do.. If you behave like a bully, peopole around you often treated you as a bully...

Thanks for the Welcome anywhay. Have been here for a longer period of time, but seldom write on the treads..;)

Diclotican

[Doremus]

101. Thank you for an excellent post, Diclotican.

And welcome to DU! Hope to see you posting much more!

:hi:

[Diclotican]

135. Thank you

Thank you, for your kind word; Hope to bee here more often;

Diclotican

[CTyankee]

133. Hi. I take it that you are European so it is good for me to hear your opinion.

You are right; the US under GW Bush has brought nothing but death and destruction to Iraq. I feared that Bush would destabilize the Middle East and he has. And because we are a world power we can and should use our power and hegemony to use diplomacy to help the situation in Iraq and I think the UN should be a major player in that. It is just too important to the entire world.

Unfortunately, Bush and his cohorts are living in a fantasy world. I once said that living during his administration is like being in an abusive relationship. We simply must end the cycle of violence and we need help.

A Democratic administration under Gore or Kerry would never have gotten us into this situation to begin with. A Democratic administration after Bush will have a mess on its hands. Some days I am pessimistic about our chances to recover from this hideous gang of despots.

Thanks for adding your voice to DU. I like hearing from other countries. When I travel in Europe I enjoy my conversations with the Europeans and their opinions (I am mostly in Italy lately when I go abroad, however).

[Diclotican]

134. Yes I am european;

Sir/Madam

Absolutely, it is amazing to se how far GWB have manage to destroy the creditibility of US in just 6 years time.. And I dobt that the Middle east is secured anytime soon.. It is a fear, that even Pakistan "a friend of US, and a allied in the war on terror" may go over the clift and a Islamic ectremistisk regime take General Perzewez Musharaffs place (even the name of Pakistans leader the "great leader" cant rembember.... Smart man;

The US was warned, again and again about the posibility that Iraq may blow up in your faces.. The Administration, plus a great number of americans just think it wil be a easy road and suportet the war. Even if the most of europeran was against it.. Even in the nations who suportet the war, the biggest bulk of peopole was against it.. Even I, who seldom marsing in protest was going to demostrate against the war.. I belive it was the first time I was doing somting like that...

WHY should UN fix it, when the maigty US have failed så tragically as it have in Iraq?.. The current Administrastion have told the whole world that UN, the most of the world is "irellevant", and therefore not to be suported. US even had a Ambassdor to the UN, who want the building destroyd and made to parking lots, becouse the New York City have a need for mor parking space...
The US cant belive that the UN, and its memberstate who have been humiliated for more than 6 year just want to forget all what was happing before and just sendt peace troops to Iraq like that?
My wiew is that Iraq is US mess.. You can get suport from the "great colalization of the bribed and coorset" if you want, but just don't belive the NATO Alliance just was giving in in this matter.. We are in agreement that TERROR is one of the more dangrous thing in the world.. But as long as Mr Bush, and his band is ruling the show in Washington DC, you cant belive that NATO, and europeran just are willing to send our young men, and a lot of our tressary to suport, or make that Iraq is going to be the European problem when US are sending their own soldiers home.. In a black smoke screen of adventures and horsehsit about how brave theyr was and how bad europeran armys are, becouse they dont see to get in controll..

Iras _is_ US foult, it _IS_ US responsibility to fix it, or to get a deal wit some of the least extremist grops, for a more "realistic" wiew of Iraq future.. The Administration DONT have ha plan to how to make it better. They blow ALL shances to get the suport from the iraqis, and now the Administration want someone else to help them out. So a new Republican" can be elected President, and start another war, against "the axis of evil".. By the way I wil be REALLY disipointet if US are to elect anoter Republican right after Mr Bush... Then my last hope of US as a democratic, and free country wil be shattered by all means...
And that feeling is somting that many peopole feel on this side of the pound...

I have my dobut that a Gore ore a Kerry was doing the same stupid mistakes as Mr Bush.. Even a braindead Reagan was not willing to do that type of extrem stupidity as George Walker Bush jr.. Sometime I have the urge to trow someting om the old TV when Bush is talking, or walking into the screen.. In some way I am feeling fysically sick when he are on TV... He is one of the most arrogant leader US ever had had.. I dont know other than Regan Bush sr and Clinton.. But they was both better men then this thug on the trone..(Yes I mean Mr Bush is a thug, nothing more, nothing less)

A Democratic Administrastion I do hope hade a better shance to use Diplomatic means to get the suport of Europeran powers.. Even my own little country (Norway) mait been in the business, with some forces. As we was, and are in Afghanistan.. There was our "finest men" verry important to blow this hole in the Tora Bora mountains when the B52 was bombing Al Qaida and the Taliban... But becouse we was not suporting the war against Iraq, the Ambassador to Norway even treathen to tell us that if you dont suport us now, we may not suport you in the future.. That was playing hardball to the goverment of Norway.. And he was into our foreign ministery to get a clear message from our goverment against this type of behaveour...

I do HOPE that US wil recover from mr Bush jr doing.. I have a feeling it wil ta a long time to fix it, but you have had bad leaders before and survived.. But not as bad as this type of bandits..

Good to know that someone in US are traveling to Europe. You may find Norway interesting.. We have a lot of natur, if you are into that;).. But we are not in the same league as Italia with all its history and buildings then.. But even Starwars have some shot from Finse (the battle for Hoth) in the montains of Norway..

Diclotican

[CTyankee]

139. Thanks for your reply.

As I read through the responses on this thread, I see some very good suggestions for what the US can do with this mess the Democrats will inherit. First, the US will have to pay reparations of some sort in addition to getting some diplomatic efforts with other Middle Eastern countries who could be helpful. If the Iraqui's want to separate into regions according to sect, which is generally what US Senator Joe Biden has suggested, then so be it. It is much more complicated than that, of course. Perhaps you have read about Senator Biden's plan? I am sure you can Google it.

Because I never voted for these Bush thugs, and I was strongly against their policies, I Know that I and my fellow Democrats were right and the Republican apologists for Bush were miserably wrong. I also worked hard to elect Ned Lamont to take Joe Lieberman's Senate seat, but our efforts, noble as they were, failed. However, now you will notice that even some Republicans are realizing how wrong Bush's policies have been.

Believe me, the American people are fed up with this guy and they want us OUT of Iraq as soon as possible. All of my friends regard Bush as offensive as you do. We are trying to get these Republicans out of office soon!

Norway sounds like an interesting country. There are many people of Norwegian descent in Wisconsin, a state where we have a summer house. Also those of Swedish and Belgian descent. It is a nice area called Door County.

[bananas]

10. wikipedia has some info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Aftermath

Aftermath

<snip details>

The dire predictions of a generation did not come to fruition. Since Thailand and other South East Asian nations did not fall to systematic Vietnamese aggression, the Domino Theory, so widely trumpeted, was said to have been an illusion. Vietnam, without the presence of the United States, showed itself to be of little economic or strategic value to anyone.<99>

<snip>

[Common Sense Party]

138. Don't simply snip details that are inconvenient.

Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese officials, particularly ARVN officers, were imprisoned in reeducation camps after the Communist takeover. Tens of thousands died and many fled the country after being released. Up to two million civilians left the country, and as many as half of these boat people perished at sea....



After repeated border clashes in 1978, Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) and ousted the Khmer Rouge. As many as two million died during the Khmer Rouge genocide.

[Crabby Appleton]

11. It wasn't pretty

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

see also:

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

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Conflating the mess in Cambodia with Vietnam is dishonest.

Yes there were many who fled vietnam - after all they backed the losing side in the civil war and did not want to stick around to see how things developed. If you know the history of vietnam you should be aware that the refugees were generally the catholic population that had backed first the french and then the americans and the chinese ethnic population, who also had backed the colonial regimes. The vast majroity of the vietnamese population belonged to neither group and supported the new government. There was no bloodbath in vietnam.

[Neshanic]

31. After we left, everyone was given a timeshare, and paradise was formed.

Reading the idiocy here of the timeline of the fall of Saigon to Vietnam hosting Nike shoe plants, it was approximately 3 months from people clinging to chopper skids to happy Commu-capitalists and a paradise.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Wow what a total bullshit argument.

I never said that vietnam was a paradise. I said there was no bloodbath and that the vast majority of the population backed the new regime. Try attacking the arguments I have made rather than inventing idiocy to attack instead.

[Neshanic]

33. "There was no bloodbath in vietnam."

I guess I missed that part, the tourture, re-education camps, displacement of millions, the war itself, the effects on the region after the war.

Those silly Vietnamese hanging on to French and Us Embassy fences, helicopter skids. Silly Vietnamese, the fun they missed; the ones that made it or the ones that were thrown as babies into the helicopters.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Another dishonest argument.

The question at hand in the OP was if there was a bloodbath in vietnam after we pulled out and the vietnamese took over. Calling the war itself 'a bloodbath' as proof for your argument is stupid and dishonest. Of course the war was a bloodbath: we killed somewhere around 2,000,000 vietnamese. The question I was addressing, as you full well know, is as I just stated, did the new government commit a massacre after it took over, as predicted by the rightwing in this country? The answer is unambiguously, no they did not. Were there prison camps and refugees? Yes of course there were. They had a 20 year civil war, when a civil war ends generally the winning side arrests and imprisons the leadership of the losing side. Yes there were refugees, lots of refugees, all told around 2,000,000 people fled vietnam from 1975 to the mid eighties. What there wasn't was a bloodbath after the fall of Saigon. But you know that, as you are not engaged in an honest debate here.

[Neshanic]

41. So what is your definition of a Non-bloodbath after a war?

[Warren Stupidity]

75. What happened in Vietnam vs what happened in Cambodia.

Vietnam: no bloodbath. Cambodia: hideous nightmare of a self inflicted genocide.

[Kajsa]

57. The ones that made it out first came to

Camp Pendleton, Marine Corp. Base, in northern
San Diego County.

The majority of them first settled here, in Orange County, CA.
We have a Little Saigon in Westminster, CA. less than 10 miles
from where I live.

The Vietnamese-Americans in Westminster, Garden Grove and
surrounding areas are for the most part, adamantly anti-communist.
They protested a recent visit from the president of Vietnam.
A book shop owner who displayed a portrait of Ho Chi Mihn almost
caused near riots from the throngs who demanded he remove the
portrait.

Our Little Saigon,CA. is to Vietnamese-Americans
what Little Havana, FL.is to Cuban-Americans.

http://www.beachcalifornia.com/saigon.html

[ellisonz]

46. Anybody who knows their history knows it's about INDOCHINA...

...and not just Vietnam.

And...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian-Vietnamese_War

[Neshanic]

47. Thank you.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. "Indochina" was largely a French creation, historically

Cambodians speak a different language than Vietnamese, and consider themselves ethnically and historically distinct. Vietnam, with more or less its current borders, has been thought of as distinct from "Cambodia" since well before French colonization. So the conflation of Cambodia and Vietnam for the purpose of saying "Aha! Bloodbath!" is actually historically dishonest. It's not about "Indochina" at all.

[ellisonz]

90. Yes, and the war was largely the story of the dissolution and reconsolidation of these ethnic groups

Don't take this as having anything to do with Iraq because it's not a direct comparison, and I'm not saying "Aha Bloodbath!", I'm saying that much of current historical analysis reflects a regional approach to the conflict and that there is good reason for this approach. To put this in terms of Iraq, when the comprehensive histories are written they will prologue in 1945 with Israel and US investment in Saudi Arabia, and begin in in 1979 with Saddam's purge and seizure of power and the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Even wikipedia entry relfects this analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_War

Furthermore, if you wanted to find this approach in academic literature:

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Longest-War-Vietnam-1950-1975/dp/0072536187/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7077231-8603659?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184467336&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-War-Nationalism-Revolution-Divided/dp/007018030X/ref=sr_1_1/105-7077231-8603659?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184467622&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Assuming-Burden-Commitment-Revolution-Perspective/dp/0520251628/ref=sr_1_6/105-7077231-8603659?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184467861&sr=1-6

Not everything is about America and who America directly commits genocide against...

:hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

97. Oh, to be sure

I suppose I misunderstood your post because the other poster took it as some sort of vindication of his nonsensical claims.

Yes, obviously the American war in Southeast Asia can only be read and understood in terms of the previous history of colonization. Yes. Absolutely. You'll see below that I make a similar point with respect to the definition of Viet Minh.

Cheers.

[ellisonz]

98. The aftermath too...

...especially given the Domino hype and the Cold War in general.

Cheers.

Edit: I would add to make absolutely clear that I do not believe we can make a "precipitous withdrawl" at this time in Iraq. I think we need to at least try a different approach to counterinsurgency, namely not using Americans to police the cities and reducing the size of the Iraqi forces to create forces that aren't death squads and are effective at policing. I think this is a very serious matter and can't be governed strategically by the dogma either left or right. I did not, and do not support this war, but I do think the stakes are high.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. Two things

1) While the wars in Southeast Asia have to be read in terms of the colonial history, the results in Cambodia were far differe3nt from the results in Vietnam. The entire motivation for this discussion has to do with the dire warnings of bloodbath in Vietnam that prolonged our activities there for several years. These warnings were not borne out. There was indeed a "bloodbath" in Cambodia, but that wasn't the result that was warned about, and that wasn't the concern that kept us involved. Obviously, the accuracy of these warnings are now again relevant because the same rhetoric of devastation is being used to justify our continued presence in Iraq.

2) I utterly disagree with you. We must announce a pull-out date from Iraq, and commence withdrawal immediately, and complete it as soon as is practicable. Obviously, other diplomatic efforts should be brought to bear. But the occupation of Iraq must end as soon as possible. That's a serious assessment, not a dogma.

[ellisonz]

103. What do you mean by practicable and ASAP in the actual context?

I agree, the current position is untenable. I am not advocating open ended occupation. I am advocating humanitarian intervention/withdrawl, not "pull-out," which will result in serious violence, and likely significant acts of genocide.

The issue at hand is what happens in a power vacuum. Cambodia could be seen as "Kurdistan." I definitely do believe we need a serious reduction in troop level and that much of that must come from Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle/Al-Anbar, but we don't need to pull out of the North/Kirkuk/Mosul or the South at this moment in time, these are not the places where Americans are dying in droves. You're conceptualizing Iraq as a single entity when in reality in it is three countries.

I do not believe a forced partition is a solution. However, I do not believe we ought to betray the Kurds/Shia again a la Bush I. What this amounts to is reducing American presence in the quagmire i.e. Baghdad and its hinterlands and the Sunni regions. Population displacement has and will occur and that means that if we need to evacuate the remaining Shia minority in the Sunni region so be it because otherwise those people will be submitted to a war not resembling Vietnam, but more like Yugoslavia, and that is not to pontificate, because otherwise we create trememndous risk and uncertainty across the entire Middle East.

Iraq is not an intellectual exercise, it is a cold, hard reality, human lives are being lost. The United States bears some responsibility both as an invader and as a force of good in the world to do what it can to save innocent lives. We need a new strategy, not a new disaster, and an announced date and a swift withdrawl will produce that for the Iraqi people and the Middle East as a whole. To do otherwise is just plain irresponsible, and as both a liberal and an American I find that unacceptable.

March 15, 2007

Statement by Senator Webb on the Reid Iraq Joint Resolution
The following is a statement from Senator Jim Webb regarding Senator Reid's Joint Resolution on the Iraq War:

"I supported Senator Reid's Joint Resolution on the Iraq War because it provided the right criteria for moving toward the objectives that I have repeatedly outlined as necessary for the United States to eventually withdraw from Iraq and contribute to greater stability in the region.

"Those objectives include robust diplomatic efforts in the region and the repositioning of our combat forces outside Iraq. These steps would allow our forces to properly address the war against international terrorism rather than becoming even more bogged down in sectarian strife.

"I have repeatedly said that I am against timetables in Iraq in the absence of proper diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. I am encouraged by recent diplomatic overtures by the Bush administration, starting with the Baghdad conference last weekend and looking toward the ministerial talks that will take place next month.

"The supplemental appropriations bill will provide another opportunity for a full and meaningful debate on our next steps in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. I look forward to more debate on this vital issue."

http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=270835

July 12, 2007

WEBB: "WHITE HOUSE REPORT ON IRAQ MISSES THE POINT"
Washington, DC—The following is a statement by Senator Jim Webb in response to the Administration’s assessment report on progress in Iraq:

“Today’s Benchmark Assessment Report on Iraq is essentially the White House giving itself a report card. The real news is that our government’s top counter-terrorism experts believe that the threat of Al Qaeda is as high today as it was in 2001.

“I and many others with long experience in national security affairs warned well before the invasion of Iraq that the invasion and occupation of that country would mire the United States in an unnecessary war rather than allow us to address the greater concern of international terrorism. We are seeing the inevitable result of that failed strategy. It remains vitally important that we focus on a diplomatic solution in Iraq that will allow us to remove our military from that country and to address other strategic requirements, including the global threat of terrorism."

http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=278931&

:evilfrown:

[alcibiades_mystery]

104. I mean damn near unconditional withdrawal, tout de suite

I believe the occupation is the primary source of the chaos. Continuing the occupation to stem the chaos is a failed project from conception. By practicable and ASAP I mean solely logistical concerns: how do we get troops and equipment physically out of there in an orderly manner. That's it. We should make the announcement, pledge reparations, and then turn the details of what follows over to third-parties (regional and otherwise). I don't believe the arm-waivers of impending doom.

Announce tomorrow, and set New Year's as a target date.

We have lost all credibility as fair dealers in this matter. We should set up an escrow to be administered by the UN for reparation purposes. Period.

[ellisonz]

105. ...

1. An orderly withdrawl without some tactical/strategic shift is impossible.
2. A withdrawl announcement would unleash tremendous jockeying among all sides.
3. No third-party is going to takeover. Neither the UN nor the Arab League want any part of this mess.
4. I'm not waving impending doom, what I'm waving is that we're in a very difficult situation and that we can't simply abdicate.
5. It's not about being a fair dealer. It's about trying to set up some sort of viable civil government while significantly reducing the US footprint in Iraq.

The tragic reality is that we are going to be in Iraq until at least mid-way in the Democratic administration that takes hold in 2008.

Sorry, I don't preach to the choir. I don't like choirs.

:hide:

[alcibiades_mystery]

106. I'm not preaching to the choir

I just think you're wrong.

I can think you're wrong without being a dogmatist or a choir preacher, you know? I don't throw in little comments about your dogma or relative adherence to ideologies when I address your posts, and I'd appreciate it if you treat me in the same fair manner.

1. No shit. I suppose your comments here refer to my use of "logistical." Yes, obviously this would constitute a "strategic" shift. Duh.
2. Yes. And?
3. That remains to be seen. Very likely, people are content to let us thrash around for a while longer. The announcement and withdrawal would force some hands. In any case, none of this can be known until we do it, and we must do it. So, your prediction is noted. It has as much value as mine.
4. Not only can we "abdicate," but it is our ethical duty to do so as swiftly as possible, as described in my post.
5. You can't have B without A.

The tragic reality is that we are going to be in Iraq until at least mid-way in the Democratic administration that takes hold in 2008.

Not if I can help it.

[ellisonz]

107. And you have every right to that belief...

I'm just fully aware that my position is unpopular on DU, even if it is the dominant position among congressional Democrats.

1. Yay for chaos!
2. The point is that the Iraqi government clearly is not capable of defending itself, much less the its own people at this point, and if the US were to leave they would likely be slaughtered, even if the government didn't dissolve. There were over 400 US air-strikes last year, so clearly US expertise, both in the air and on the ground are still needed to hold the line.
3. You do realize that there really isn't much of a quagmire in the South or the North and that it's Baghdad and the Sunni region that are problematic. It's called "containment."
4. Ethical to whom? The Iraqi people? Bull.
5. Yes you can. It's called war. The United States's position in Iraq is not one of a dealer. I think you're painting I/P onto Iraq.

Just stating the reality...we've got a choice between three more years in Iraq and ten more years in Iraq. I'll take the three. The GOP hates my position because it's what "liberal" international relations theory and conflict studies literature (not Kissinger) suggest should be done. By the middle of 2009 I could see the US mission reduced to 60-80 thousand personnel compared to the current 160,000, and by the end of 2011 to less than 30,000 for essential security, training, and combat support missions. Yes, we need a external diplomatic solution, but that is not going to happen until we quit trying to smash the insurgency all by our lonesome selfs when the Iraqi's can and will do that once they see serious troop reductions. No need to announce a date certain; just do it.

:hide:

[alcibiades_mystery]

115. Yeah well

The whole rhetorical tack of positionming your thought as "unpopular" is a little much. I realize you get5 to be the romantic rebel that way, but as argument, it's childish.

1. As opposed to what we have now? And you forgot to read my previous post, where I said that I believe the US occupation is causing the chaos...
2. There is no Iraqi government at present. Perhaps one or several will emerge.
3. Right. Containment...
4. Yes, to the Iraqi people. Bull yourself.
5. I'm not painting anything on to anything. It's time to go, period. All your "strategists" are craven and unimaginative cowards.

[Neshanic]

112. Those arm wavers? Are those the same that were going to throw flowers?

So no doom scenario.

We will see, then you can actually see on television this time the "orderly" panic of a populace fleeing an approaching army. No looting, rioting, killing, museum destruction, public building destruction(what's left), and a big group hug between all factions as they wave bye-bye to us, and not shoot our guys in the back.

Your dispassionate and cold rememberance of things you never even experienced show in your writing. Maybe when you see the complete chaos that will ensue during and after we leave will put some reality instead of cold and revisionist crap that was penned by people like Kissinger.

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. You don't know what the fuck will happen after we leave

That's fact. You don't know, and most predictions have been fucking wrong, especially military predictions.

So fucking smoke that, Mr. Passionate.

[Neshanic]

119. You ask for citations, then blanket statement ...

"and most predictions have been fucking wrong, especially military predictions."

[alcibiades_mystery]

122. LOL

"Six days, six weeks, six months..."

Gimme a break.

Say it slowly with me: you don't know what will happen after we leave.

It's alright. You can admit it. Everyone knows.

[Neshanic]

124. "I don't believe the arm-waivers of impending doom." Try that slowly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

126. Yeah, that would be you

I don't believe that your predictions are accurate. So?

[Neshanic]

127. Then don't. We will both see how it plays out.

My take is it will be a nightmare come to life.

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. And my take is that the current situation is a nightmare

And that we've heard all manner of lies and faulty predictions to keep us involved in this war of choice. My take is also that a very obvious paternalism runs through the "We have to save the Iraqis from themselves" nonsense.

[Neshanic]

114. Please correct/edit entry in Wikipedia.

"In The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old puppet government in the South to "re-education camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned as prisoners of war.<1> 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.<1> Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.<1>"

[alcibiades_mystery]

117. That citation comes from an unsources study discussed at length below

Show me the "published academic studies." Let's see 'em.

And you do understand that I COULD change Wikipedia if I wanted to, yes? Anyone can, chief.

[Neshanic]

120. Then change it. See it get edited.

[alcibiades_mystery]

121. Why should I bother?

Anyone of good judgment following that link would realize that it is an unsourced statement.

Only dishonest people and dupes would read it uncritically. So, which are you?

[Neshanic]

123. There are people that edit the site that know more than me and amazingly you.

So go for it, and correct them. I am sure the others will help you out with facts and citations.

[alcibiades_mystery]

125. I already showed you why that citation is dubious

It comes from an article submitted for a dart award, penned by Ahn So and Tran Phan.

They mention the "published academic studies" but never show us WHICH studies. They have no bibliography for their article. This is very simple, and has nothing to do with me or your emotional attachment. If there are such studies, we can read them, evaluate their methodologies and information sources, and come to a legitimate conclusion about their veracity. Since these studies are not cited, we can do none of that. People of good judgment thus withhold judgment on that claim of fact until they see REAL evidence.

But you don't want REAL evidence. You want to believe what you want to believe. That's fine, I guess, but it ain't history. People who prefer real evidence, in your book, are "cold and dispassionate." Guilty. When somebody makes a factual claim, I'm all for transparency of evidence. Not you. You like it when your evidence is passionate and dripping, however obscured and hidden it may be. Good luck with that.

[Neshanic]

128. Use this in your defense when you edit the topic. No problem. Go for it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. Nice try

You keep trying to make this about Wikipedia when it is really about your inability to back up your assertions.

Whatever. I don't edit wikipedia. I already showed you what was wrong with the statement. Since you have no answer to that, you proceed with this ridiculous line. That's fine. A little comical, but fine, I guess.

[defendandprotect]

94. "It's a nice piece of real estate," JFK noted . . .

Evidently, as JFK began to see realize what was actually going on re the Joint Chiefs push for VN, he made this comment to one of his lifelong pals . . . with a knowing acknowledgment of the quest for Vietnam being about something other than democracy.

Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, wrote a book recently which has a great description of what the UNITED NATIONS said should happen in Vietnam . . . it was to be left under the direction of the leader at the time. Our government did everything they could to destroy that process, including moving citizens from one end of the country to the other.

Vietnam remains the "Bright Shining Lie" --

but there is more because we have always wanted control of this area -- The Golden Triangle.

If oil is hotly pursued for profits, think about the profits in drugs!!!!

The drug trade has only existed with the cooperation of some government officials and police enforcement.

The profits mean power and cannot be ignored.

The opportunity to meddle in other nation's affairs - co-opting their own governments -- is also rampant.

We need to end the "Drug War."

[kurth]

55. Also, beware of anti-Communist propaganda by some Vietnamese in the U.S.

They're as rabid as the anti-Castro Cuban bunch in Miami.

[Kajsa]

56. OK, but what REALLY took place in

those "re-education" camps?

Sometimes death is preferable to prolonged torture.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. The vietnamese government and system seems to be pretty popular

in vietnam, but not so popular here among the exile community, although now that vietnam is safe for capitalist exploitation even that attitude is changing. The vietnamese in vietnam seem to be quite happy with the way things turned out. Perhaps its not to your liking, but it really is none of your business, is it?

At any rate, it is their country, and once we got out the chaos and killing stopped. Which was what the OP was asking about. Which is what will happen in Iraq as well once the mess we created is sorted out.

[Kajsa]

131. I was asking about the "re-education" camps,

and what took place inside of them.

Period.

What's this " none of your business" crap?

So, torture is " none of my business" ?

Sounds like a phrase from Alberto Gonzales.

[theoldman]

13. The Death rate dropped dramatically.

We killed about a million so a few thousand deaths after the war had little effect on the country.

[Up2Late]

14. Nothing. At least that's what happened if you only got your news from the American MSM...

...which most of us did.

Sort of like today's American so-called MSM's and it's non-coverage of Central and South America for the last 25 years. :banghead:

The first time I ever heard of the killing fields was when the film "The Killing Fields" came out in 1984: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087553/>

First time I saw that movie, I was completely confused, because the American MSM said nothing about any of that from 1975 to 1984.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Were you alive then?

Not what I remember at all.

[Up2Late]

70. Uh Yeah! I was 12 years old 1975 and I was very into watching the National and local news...

...at the time too. We had T.V.s in just about every room, including the Kitchen, and we watched the National and Local News every night! I don't remeber ever seeing anything about the aftermath of the pull out or the genocide going on in Cambodia. As I remember, Vietnam just fell off the face of the planet after 1975.

Maybe it depends on where you lived at the time, I was living in Northern Indiana, same place that never told us that 70% of the wells in City Well field had been contaminated with Toxic Waste in 1981 (EPA ID: IND980794358). Nobody that I have talked to about this to has ever heard about it.

Here's the link for more info on that:
<http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.CleanupActs&id=0501813>

And here's a link to another "Superfund Clean-up site (my Indiana town of 42,000 people has 3) which was less than a mile from one of the houses I lived in as a kid that was discovered in 1974, a year after we moved across town: <http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.CleanupActs&id=0501596>

1974! It was shut down in 1976 and was one of the first sites added to the list when the EPA Superfund law was passed, and 33 years later they are only to the "POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY REMEDIAL DESIGN" stage of the clean-up. Still most don't even know about it as it has received minimal news coverage over the years. I guess they hope well all die of cancer and other un-natural causes, and as long as we don't make the connection with our childhood homes, they are in the clear.

I should contact Michael Moore about this I think, I think this wound make a good movie for him.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Well you were just a kid.

And as you say, perhaps it depended on where you lived. The boat people were in the news all the time from '75 on. The mess in Cambodia did not get a lot of publicity, although by the time of the vietnamese intervention it was being covered.

[Up2Late]

80. I was a just a kid, yes, but I was very interested in Vietnam and politics even then.

Think about it, I didn't really get all the "...War is going great" BS of the 60's, I was more worried about it dragging on for another 5 or 6 years when I would have to make the choice of what to do.

Plus, when I first started hearing (and worrying) about Vietnam, the news was all about "The Draft" in the early 1970's, and then the post-1972 election government propaganda about how important it was for us, as a country, to get out of Vietnam.

I do remember the Boat People, now that you mention it, but that was only covered because they were coming here, but I don't remember them really explaining why they were coming, except that some of them wanted to be re-united with the Fathers of the kids our troops left behind.

Other than that, as you said, the chaos in Vietnam and the genocide in Cambodia didn't make the Evening News.

[SOS]

72. The US supported Pol Pot

After the Vietnamese invasion of 1979, the US sided with the Khmer Rouge.
Carter, Reagan and Bush all recognized the genocidal Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

[JacquesMolay]

16. I know the movie 'The Killing Fields' covers...

... what happened in Cambodia, and it was horrific - the Khmer Rouge came into power and turned their demented 'Hillbilly Marxism' on the non-mountain people. Millions dies.

[kurth]

19. If it hadn't been for the Vietnam People's Army (aka NVA)

Pol Pot would have continued his murderous reign in Cambodia for many years.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. You do understand that Cambodia is a different country than Vietnam, yes?

Are you also aware that the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in order to overthrow Pol Pot?

[JacquesMolay]

45. I understand that the Cambodian bombings were part of...

... the Vietnam war. Nixon turned Cambodia into a refugee camp with a massive aerial campaign because he thought they were giving aid to North Vietnamese regulars. The Khmer rouge stepped in and took power when the country was devastated. The invasion you speak of was later.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. We deposed the legitimate government and installed the hated Lon NOl

regime, which directly resulted in the Khmer Rouge insurgency gaining traction and taking over the country after we pulled out. That hideous regime was finally done in by the vietnames government, over our objections, and we then turned around and backed the vile khmer rouge for another ten years. We totally fucked over Cambodia and are completely responsible for every bit of bad shit that went down there.

[ConsAreLiars]

58. The Khmer Rouge forces were divided into pro and anti Vietnamese factions, and Lon Nol's job was

to use US support in order to disrupt the Vietnamese's supply routes through the Northeast, where there was an understanding with the Khmer Rouge leadership in the zone. When Lon Nol's military was used against that faction, along with US bombing, the other Khmer factions based elsewhere were strengthened relatively, and Lon Nol further weakened as well. Thus the Pol Pot forces took the capital, turned its army against the other factions and began purging the population of potential resisters. It retained US support in the UN and through other means because of it's xenophobia and in particular its antipathy to the Vietnamese.

(edit typo)

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. Yes, obviously

None of which is either here nor there with respect to the conditions in Vietnam following reunification.

[KharmaTrain]

17. The Fall Out Here...

When I saw those helicopters lifting off the American embassy, I felt a combination of anger and relief. Relief that the war was over...anger on how many lives had been wasted and the damage it had done to this country. In the wake of Vietnam we ended up with a country racked in inflation caused by the debts the war incurred and rising oil prices based on Kissinger's wheeling and dealing with Saudis, Saddam Hussein, The Shah of Iran and other assorted sheiks that made billions and fueled and funded the "Islamofacists" of today.

Those who fought the war were forgotten and/or ignored. Everyone pointed fingers as to "who lost Vietnam". Things like PTSD were ignored...and many who fought the war there, faced a war at home with alcoholism, homelessness and depression. Our national "pyche" was strained...how could we have lost the war? We had all that firepower...yet, how could we lose? Instead of learning lessons...some decided the only way to right the wrongs was to fight more wars...many who are controlling the levers of power today.

Lastly, there was Watergate...the fall-out had diminished the power of the Executive and Ford looked inept in handling this, the fall of Cambodia and then the Mayaguez capture. One will hope that in the wake of the Iraq fiasco and the corruption of the past 6 years, a similar revision of politicians and policy will be in order.

Cheers...

[mrcheerful]

23. Yet After all was said and done 4 years after Fords defeat

we got Reagan and the start of the rise of the neo con.

[KharmaTrain]

30. The Unfinished Nixon Impeachment

When Ford pardoned Nixon and declared "our national nightmare is over", but a bunch of shit that proved to be. It ended investigations and people quickly wanted to forget about Watergate, Nixon and even politics for a while. Call it the long-overdue "hang-over" of the social changes of the late 60s and early 70s.

While the worst Nixon crooks did do some jail time, many crept off into the night...into corporate gigs or the AEI to fester and pontificate without any need to be accurate or accountable.

But, in fairness, in 1975, I was just glad the Vietnam war was finally over...at least our involvement and that Nixon's regime had been vanquished. I also never thought we'd ever allow this country to be lied into a war or tolerate a rouge executive run amok in the Executive branch.

[defendandprotect]

96. We were slowly reintroduced to rid ourselves of the VN Syndrome via Grenada/Panama/ Gulf War I . .

while journalists/free press coverage of the wars were targeted and shunted to the side and gagged until today it is so obvious that journalists are being purposefully killed in Iraq --

Grenada and Panama were a crock --
and used as an opportunity to test new weapons that they hadn't been able to try out in the years of "peace." These are disgraceful episodes by an American "fascist" government.

So, too, Gulf War I -- especially the vets support for the parades and the renewed glorification of war!!!!

All disgusting --

[Jeffersons Ghost]

21. you can bet it wasn't a sixties-style, love-in over there...

Who dares to speculate on how (or if) we'll leave Iraq?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

38. You're back!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

83. BACK IN BLACK! and I come bearing gifts...

including a face-lift for that Lady we both love...

How does this pose strike you as a new icon?

Beautiful women shouldn't hide their faces!

here's another cool graphic:

and last but not least an innocent kiss...

[DetroitProle]

39. I studied Vietnam

in college.
It wasn't pretty. Contrary to what people on this board may lead you to believe, what followed was an extremely repressive regime.
However, the question is not what went on, but why it went on.
The Vietnamese by all rights should have been able to complete a peaceful reunification of their country, which the US prevented. The attitude in Washington was that no free people could elect communists. Even if we have to stop them from doing that.
The communists were not being, "brought in". In its earliest years the Viet Minh was an organic South Vietnamese movement. Historians tend to agree that had free elections been held as per the Geneva agreements, Ho would have won, fair and square.
The US-led war devastated the country. For the decade after the war, little progress was made in rebuilding the economy or infrastructure. As a result of the war, the country was one of the poorest.
The siege mentality remained after the war along with harsh political repression.
However, there were essentially no infighting groups, unlike Iraq. The US-backed South Vietnamese government certainly did not enjoy support from any more than 20% of the population.
You mention concern for the people we had supported when we left. We had been shoring up the corrupt and deeply unpopular succession of South Vietnamese dictatorships for years. Aside from some bureaucrats, some Catholics, and wealthier merchants, virtually no one supported the South Vietnamese government, which immediately collapsed and surrendered without our support.
Also, there was no, "bloodbath" after we left. Ie Stalinist purges or Maoist Leaps Forward.
The country finally rebounded in the 80s and is now an economic force in Southeast Asia.
The moral of the story: Things were bad for the Vietnamese after the war. The communists weren't warm and fuzzy. However, had the US never gotten involved in the first place, the Vietnamese would have been much, much better off in every sense.

[Neshanic]

42. Kissinger gives you an "A"

[Warren Stupidity]

43. "The communists weren't warm and fuzzy"

I don't see anyone arguing that they were, but I see lots of folks here arguing that some of us here said they were. There was no bloodbath after the vietnamese took over. There was and is political repression. There were around 2,000,000 refugees over a ten year period. Given the wreck we left behind, the government did its best to rebuild their nation, in their own fashion, with all the standard pitfalls of a marxist leninist system. But it was their system.

[kurth]

54. Viet Minh was North Vietnamese

Viet Cong was their Southern brethren, but they didn't start until the late 50s or so.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. There was no North Vietnam until after the 1956 peace accord

and even then it was a temporary arrangement to allow the French to withdraw peacefully. The Viet Minh operated throughout viet nam for their insurgency against occupation by France, Japan, and then France again. After Eisenhower refused to allow the unification of vietnam, as required by the 56 treaty, the vietnamese reconstituted the insurgent forces in the south as the viet cong.

Vietnam has been one nation for a very long time, although often dominated by foreign powers.

"The History of Vietnam, according to legends, dates back more than 4,000 years. The only reliable sources, however, indicate the Vietnamese history roughly dates to 2700 years ago. For most of the period from 111 BC to early 10th century, it was under the direct rule of successive dynasties from China. Vietnam regained autonomy in early 10th century, and complete independence in 938 AD. While for much of its history, Vietnam remained a tributary state to its larger neighbor China, it repelled repeated attempts by China to make it once again part of the Middle Kingdom empire, including the three invasions by the Mongols during the Yuan Dynasty, when China was under Mongolian rule. But the king at that time, Trần Nhân Tông, would eventually diplomatically submit as a tributary of the Yuan to avoid further conflicts. The independent period temporarily ended in middle to late 19th century, when the country was colonized by France. During World War II, Imperial Japan expelled the French to occupy Vietnam, though they retained French administrators during their occupation. After the war, France attempted to re-establish its colonial rule but ultimately failed. The Geneva Accords partitioned the country in two with a promise of democratic election to reunite the country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam

Repeating the tired rightwing bullshit history of the vietnam war era makes one a bit of a fool.

[kurth]

61. Viet Minh was absorbed by the Communist party of North Vietnam in 1951:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-VietMinh.html

Vietnamese people I know consider Viet Minh as a Northern organization, and Viet Cong as an NVA front in the South.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. Since there was no "North Vietnam" at the time (or ever, really)

And since the fighters in the southern portions of the French colonies were called Viet Minh by everybody, your source is a laughable piece of propaganda.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. No, that's wrong

Viet Minh was the whole of the Vietnamese resistance against French rule.

Viet Cong was a derogatory term designed by the RVN government to describe the militant arm of the National Liberation Front (NLF).

The distinction is not "geographical" but historical. The "Viet Minh" stopped being called the Viet Minh after the collapse of french rule in Southeast Asia. It has nothing to do with northern and southern portions of Vietnam.

Ask any French soldier who fought the Viet Minh on la rue sans joie just north of Hue (later southern Vietnam, i.e., RVN), or in the vicinity of Tay Ninh, or in the area of Cu Chi, and ask them whether there were southern Viet Minh!

[Yupster]

67. Taking some issues with you

The Viet Minh were a mostly northern group fighting the French. The Viet Cong was the southern group which fought the US and ARVN until Tet where they were pretty much destroyed. After Tet the war was pretty much against North Vietnamese regulars.

I don't think it's fair saying the South Vietnamese dictatorships didn't enjoy 20 % support. Our government currently barely enjoys 20 % support, but that doesn't mean people want it overrun by a communist dictatorship either.

You said the South Vietnamese government immediately surrendered without our support. This is also unfair. The last US combat soldiers left in 1973. Saigon fell on April 30, 1975. It's a real stretch to call that immediate.

In fact by 1972, the ARVN was carrying the vast bulk of the ground fighting. The 1972 N Vietnamese spring offensive was aimed at shattering ARVN now that it was without US troops to stiffen it. The offensive almost worked. A huge N. Vietnamese traditional offensive crashed across the DMZ, took Quang Tri and approached Hue. The defending ARVN divisions buckled and retreated. Then ARVN sent better units up to reinforce the north. They counterattacked, regained the lost ground and sent the offensive into headlong retreat back across the DMZ. A big sigh of relief was let out in Washington. It was a near thing, but Vietnamization was working.

There's real myth that the ARVN wouldn't fight and just ran away. It's a much more complicated story than that. The ARVN was very uneven.Much desertion and corruption. The same unit would fight hard one day and be sent to flight the next. Other units were quite tough. They beat the RVN forces in straight up fights more than once.

So what happened in 1975? Thieu made a disastrous decision in early 1975. The main fighting was going on in the less populated Central Highlands. A town would be attacked and ARVN would have to rush reinforcements in by helicopter. This went on for months from town to town. ARVN was trained to fight a US style war which was very expensive on fuel aand ammunition. Then once US forces left and especially after Watergate, the US Congress began cutting aid. The result was that Theiu decided to evacuate the Central Highlands to protect the coastal plains and Mekong Delta where 95 % of the population lived and where the food was grown.

The evacuation was handled poorly, qickly turned into a rout, and the whole country was rolled up with only a few hard fights (Xuan Loc being the biggest - read up about this battle on wikipedia http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-xuan-loc.

Anyway, the idea that ARVN wouldn't and didn't fight is an oversimplification which does a disservice to many thousands who died. The ARVN lost more men in 1972 alone than we did in the entire war for instance.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. I'll take a bit of issue with your position, as well

In fact by 1972, the ARVN was carrying the vast bulk of the ground fighting. The 1972 N Vietnamese spring offensive was aimed at shattering ARVN now that it was without US troops to stiffen it. The offensive almost worked. A huge N. Vietnamese traditional offensive crashed across the DMZ, took Quang Tri and approached Hue. The defending ARVN divisions buckled and retreated. Then ARVN sent better units up to reinforce the north. They counterattacked, regained the lost ground and sent the offensive into headlong retreat back across the DMZ. A big sigh of relief was let out in Washington. It was a near thing, but Vietnamization was working.

There's no doubt that what you say is true: the ARVN were very uneven, and some units were much more able than others. Moreover, as you say, the ARVN often fought, and fought hard, and the reputation of the ARVN had much to do with American mythology. That said, I'm not sure that anyone would deny that the 1972 Spring Offensive was stopped NOT primarily on the ground, but rather by massive US aerial bombardment - specifically, B-52 strikes on the advancing PAVN lines, which took a massive toll, and threw the offensive into chaos. The counterattacks of the ARVN forces and RVN Marines can only really be evaluated in this context.

I'd also dispute your depiction of the Viet Minh as primarily a northern movement. It ranged across the whole of Vietnam.

[Yupster]

77. I'll share the credit

between the ARVN and US Airforce.

There's no doubt the air power was vital, but airpower alone wouldn't have stopped the offensive either if the ARVN was like most Americans think they were, an army that just ran away. I think we both agree that the portrayal of them often seen in the US is very unfair.

What's missing from history are the books written by ARVN soldiers and leaders telling their side of the war. It seems to be a black hole of history.

[DetroitProle]

73. excellent clairifications

My only sticking point is the unpopularity of the GRVN.
Of course, many, if not most of the Vietnamese in the South weren't going to welcome the DRVN, no matter how bad the GRVN was. That being said, the government was bad, corrupt, nepotistic, and achieved little in the way of domestic reforms that could have created more popular support for the war. Land reform, which should have been tantamount, was either ignored, done half-heartedly, or badly bungled. Buddhist peasants don't generally like being moved around, and the strategic hamlet program did an excellent job of furthering angering the peasants, the overwhelming majority of the population.

[TahitiNut]

44. It was one of the largest refugee crises of the 20th century - the "Vietnamese Diaspora"

I keep wondering when they'll hold the "free elections" that were promised in the peace treaty. (I haven't held my breath.)

For those unlucky enough to be caught before they could leave - or who couldn't afford to buy a seat in a boat ...

Camps in Vietnam
More than 1 million people were imprisoned in re-education camps after 1975, some as long as 17 years. The Aurora Foundation estimates that about 150 camps were in operation. Each circle below represents a known prison camp.



* An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.

* 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.

* Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.

* Prisoners were incarcerated for as long as 17 years, according to the U.S. Department of State, with most terms ranging from three to 10 years.

* At least 150 re-education prisons were built after Saigon fell 26 years ago.

* One in three South Vietnamese families had a relative in a re-education camp.


http://www.dartcenter.org/dartaward/2002/hm3/01.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. I would love to see the sourcing from that story

and particularly the "published academic studies in the United States and Europe." Since Anh Do and Tran Phan did not include a bibliography with their story, however, I can only read their assessments. In any case, the US Department of State is a very dubious source indeed on these matters, and some of those numbers seem slippery. Since Anh Do's father founded the virulently anti-communist Nguoi Viet newspaper (aimed primarily at Vietnamese populations in the United States), you'll forgive me if some of this looks a bit like what the Miami Cubans might have to say about their former home.

[TahitiNut]

84. I'm sure you would.

"you'll forgive me"??? I will? Really? (Hmmm.) That sounds a bit presumptuous to me.

I don't personally see a "right" side wearing a "white hat" in the Viet Nam debacle ... but it's certain that others do. YMMV.

Whatever. :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. OK

I think I've been clear in this thread that I don't see any white hat either, long before your post. I'm interested because the numbers put forth by your source are so far out of line from anything else I've seen. I have an open mind about this. I'm interested in the source material because I am generally interested in the subject matter, and I would like to see as many takes on it as possible. That's all. Do I have a position? Sure. Is it open to revision? Of course.

I'm not sure I understand your implication or the nasty tone of your post, but I guess that you have your own interests (and history) as well. So perhaps you won't forgive me. At the end of the day, I meant what I said: I'm interested in seeing those sources. If that's not forthright enough for you, then I suppose I can't do much more.

[TahitiNut]

87. "the nasty tone"??? (*edited*)

I said precisely what I meant. I myself read a "nasty tone" whenever people use words like "love," "sorry," or "forgive" in ways contrary to their meaning, facetiously, or cynically.

Others may regard "you'll forgive me" as a mere rhetorical flourish - an idiom - but it's undeniably presumptuous in the literal sense since it literally PRESUMES something that's outside the province of the speaker. I read similar insincerity in sentences that begin with "I'm sorry but" or "I'd love" when the context strongly suggests anything BUT sorrow or love.

I personally regard love, sorrow, and forgiveness as special - human emotions worth respecting. I tend to respond negatively when they're cheapened or used as rhetorical baseball bats.


On edit ...

I served a tour in Viet Nam in 1969. The senior maid in my barracks (Nam) had a son in the military and took care of me during the couple of days I was bed-ridden with URI - taking the time to trek down to the head and soak a washcloth with cool water for my forehead. She was not a politician or profiteer or collaborator - she was just an older woman doing her best. She (and her son) were VERY likely to be put in reeducation camps. She was, after all, employed by the U.S. military. The same goes for the other maid (Thuy) who worked in our hooch and taught me to play the Vietnamese version of the Mancala game (Ô Quan) ... without her speaking nearly a word of English or me a word of Vietnamese. They were kind, happy, loving, hard-working people ... not soldiers and not politicians. They deserved better from us. They deserved better from their own government.

The individual stories just don't go away with all the superficial and simplistic broad brush characterizations ... mostly by people who's sole knowledge comes third-hand or fourth-hand or worse. The individual stories are real and important - and their import is never lessened by academic generalizations which ignore them.

Meet Thuy ...



For all I know she was VC ... or maybe she's dead now. I do know she was kind and fun-loving and had a great smile and lovely laugh.

[alcibiades_mystery]

88. Well, that upsets me

I wasn't using them that way, and I've been nothing but upright with you during my entire time on this board.

I don't know what else to say. I really would *love* to see those sources, since I really *love* knowledge and research on this subject matter. That's not facetious, rhetorical, flourishing, or anything else. It's goddamn straight up.

[TahitiNut]

89. Meet some of our former coworkers (and see the edits in my prior post) ...

These young ladies worked with us in our offices - not in *MY* office (it was highly classified) - but in other offices with guys in my unit. This photo was taken at one of our company's somewhat-monthly picnic/barbecues. For all any one of us knew, some of the Vietnamese we worked with were also VC. That's the way it was there. (It was business, not personal.) The woman seated at left was a maid - a "mama-san" in the NCO barracks, iirc.



For all I know, these young women were put in camps (and may be dead) because they worked for the U.S. military. If they weren't VC, it's highly likely they were.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. Well, that's what's at issue

Throughout this discussion I have been aware of your background (at least as you've discussed it on these boards), so I'm not surprised that you would invoke it. Whether it's "highly likely" that they were put in camps, or, if they were put into camps, whether the takeover significantly disrupted their lives, is what the discussion is about, so I don't think we can assume it. The fact is that you don't know what happened to these women, and neither do I. And while I respect your service and sympathize with your personal connection, I do think we have a duty to at least seek the truth on these questions, which is, once again, why I was interested in those sources.

Since we're putting our personal cards on the table, I'll do mine. I have no connection to the war. I was born in 1973. My uncle was in country 1967-1968, but that's neither here nor there. I worked in a Vietnamese restaurant to pay my way through college; the proprietors were an ethnic Chinese Vietnamese family from Cholon. The father had been press-ganged into the ARVN, as had his two brothers, both of whom were here. He was wounded in 1970, and was with his family in April-May 1975. He told me that he'd been ordered to report to a camp, which he did, along with his brothers. He spent three days there, mostly listening to speeches and signing papers. He was released with thousands of others. He said he saw a couple of people get beaten while he was there. That's it. Far worse, both he and his wife said, were the ordinances imposed on the ethnic Chinese in their neighborhood, and the prejudice of the Communists and northerners against them. The mother's family lost their store. The cook at the restaurant's father had been a real estate merchant. He lost his business and was left penniless, an event the cook described with much bitterness, as in, "when I was a kid, we were very rich, very rich" - a hard thing to hear from a guy sweating over a hot stove in a cramped kitchen. I should be clear here: the family and the extended community were extremely adverse to the current government of Vietnam; I have every expectation, however, that they were telling it straight. Every summer they went back for three weeks or so. In any case, I learned a fair deal of Vietnamese in my four years there, and I turned my academic interests to the subject. My senior thesis in history was on the war, a document I spent a year diligently researching in numerous archives - not because I wanted a good grade, but because I cared about it. And I'm certainly the last person to romanticize the NLF, the PAVN, the DRV, or the current government.

So, I could never match you in direct experience, nor would I want to. Vietnam, perhaps more than any other event in our history, has been reserved for what some observers have called combat gnosticism: if you weren't there, don't talk about it. That's fine, I guess, for personal narrative, but what an impoverished canon in history we would have if such dictates ruled our relationships to our past! No books on the Civil War would have been written post 1950 or so.

[TahitiNut]

100. I'll tentatively agree with one quibble.

The best description I've heard about the treatment of the ethnic Chinese in Viet Nam (*all* of Viet Nam) was that it was akin to how the Jews were treated in Eastern Europe in the early 20th century. It wasn't only the North or the communists.

It's the kind of thing that reminded me of the Star Trek episode ("Let That Be Your Last Battlefield") with Frank Gorshin.


I think "combat gnosticism" is an interesting term. There's a truth in it. Some things just don't reduce to statistics - at least in terms of conveying an appreciation. My undergrad major was Mathematics and grad major was Computer Science with an emphasis on numerical methods - so maybe I'm a heretic. When you're unemployed, it's 100% - when you're not, it's conversation. I've heard lots and lots and read lots ... and, while I was trying to stay "in the closet" in the 70s, I was very aware of the conditions in Viet Nam and with the refugees. It twisted my guts to a degree I can't convey ... much because all the banal blather was (and is) self-serving. I'm not aware of ANY source that's not still grinding an ax ... and harvesting the dust from similar grindstones used 30 years ago. In comparison, Cuba has been open and transparent. It's largely because the 'battle' in Southeast Asia wasn't the only conflict ... the 'battle' in the U.S. had its separate reality. Only ne of those two conflicts was 'resolved' - the other continues. And it's a "take no prisoners" battle - we saw some of it with Kerry and the Swifties. (Some has even played out here on DU, with some veterans being the targets.) So, it's a touchy subject ... and I can't help but believe that the human things we care about are important enough to not be fodder in the conflict.

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. The work of history

as I see it, is not merely a matter of cataloging statistics. But nor is it a matter solely of personal relation. It must fall somewhere in between if it is to have value, explanatory or otherwise.

That said, it was the statistics in your initial post that raised my suspicion, primarily because the specific number who "died in the camps" doesn't jive with any of the "published academic" studies that I've seen, and I've seen plenty. That piqued my curiosity (I have a weakness for such things), and my curiosity was stiff-armed by the irritating lack of citation in the award winning piece. Needless to say, this sort of thing should send up red flags (no pun intended), so that's how we got here. Now, the red flag is only further curiosity, which is why I said I would *love* to see those studies.

[SoCalDem]

51. The "collaborators" were imprisoned/executed , or in some cases

sent off for "re-education", and eventually things stabilized there. In other words, what happens after every war, happened.

The people there are still suffering from the Agent Orange damage we did.:(

[mmonk]

65. After so many years under the French

and then Americans, they finally became one nation not occupied. The conflict within the nation finally came to an end. Reeducation camps for the South Vietnamese, but not as bloody as expected.

[Beelzebud]

66. The world descended into complete anarchy and was left in smoldering ruins.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. We stopped fighting them there, so we had to fight them here.

Surely you've heard of the Great Santa Monica amphibious assault by the Viet Cong of 1977.

Why, even today you can still find Vietnamese folks running restaurants in my area. :o

They make great soup.

[SoCalDem]

78. Here's a great site with loads of pictures

http://www.vietnampix.com/index.html

[w8liftinglady]

81. that is an excellent site-thanks.

[w8liftinglady]

82. this picture just got to me...

I see anyone's baby there,tired,scared.

[tabasco]

79. Self-determination.

We used to think this was a good thing before we became an empire too.

[ellisonz]

91. Just ask the Natives...

[killbotfactory]

108. Considering the amount of ordinance we dropped there

And the millions of deaths we caused, what happened after we left was probably quite a relief.

[Phrogman]

109. I know former ARVN officers are now the tour guides through several sites around Saigon

My Brother and I visited there right before the US reopened relations. The fellow at Cu Chi tunnels spotted us as American and took us waaay down into the bowels of the system and chatted with us the whole time.
I think it was kinda like his punishment to spend the rest of his working career describing the heroics of the communists.

Nice guy though, beautiful country and culture. If anybody ever gets a chance to visit, theres no hard feelings whatsoever. They actually like Americans there now.

[krispos42]

110. There was brief surge in demand "Ho Chi Minh City" signs

and related governmental forms and stationary.

And I think Nike got involved in there somehow, as well.

[Neshanic]

113. Just a bit messy, but those timeshares were in the works.

"Repression in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Executions and Population Relocation," research show an extremely strong probability that at least 65,000 Vietnamese perished as victims of political executions in the eight years after Saigon fell. Desbarats and associate Karl Jackson only counted executions eyewitnessed by refugees in the USA and France to project the rate of killings for the population remaining in Vietnam, and so discarded about two-thirds of the political death reports received, so their figures are likely very conservative. Their death count did not include victims of starvation, disease, exhaustion, suicide or "accident" (injuries sustained in clearing minefields, for example). Nor did they count Vietnamese who inexplicably "disappeared."

[ConsAreLiars]

136. And the invaders from the US slaughtered 2 million in as much time

as that 65,000 number. What fucking point are you trying to make? The bloodbath in VN was committed by the US troops under the direction of US politicians serving the interests of their corporate owners. Trying to make that dubious number into anything other than proof that no bloodbath occurred after liberation is just irrational. Why your thinking on this subject is so disordered is something you might try to understand or explain.

[alcibiades_mystery]

140. Desbarats and Jackson's methodologies were rather definitively refuted

by Gareth Porter and James Roberts. Indeed, their statistical projections are so ridiculous that serious people would hesitate to name them.

See Porter, Gareth and James Roberts. "Creating a Bloodbath by Statistical Manipulation: A Review of A Methodology for Estimating Political Executions in Vietnam, 1975-1983, Jacqueline Desbarats; Karl D. Jackson." Pacific Affairs, 61:2 (Summer 1988), 303-310.

I'd be happy to provide the portions that most comically demolish Desbarat and Jackson's conclusions if you like.

We should also note that you've apparently given up on the uncited figure provided above of 165,000 - a figure that is curiously congruent with Desbarat and Jackson's 65,000. Perhaps So and Phan simply added another 100,000 to the rolls for old times sake. If so, their methodology would be about as sound as Desbarat and Jackson's! In any case, 100,000 seems a conveniently round number for those who siomply "died in the camps" but were not executed, especially when we find out that Desbarat and Jackson's estimation of those who were in the camps is off by orders of magnitude...

By the way, where are you citing your claims from? I'm interested.

(Wait. Wait...in the distance I hear it coming...quiet now, here it comes...I'm about to be compared to a Holocaust denier......)

[BlooInBloo]

137. Freedom stopped being on the march...

... And now lots of the prior aristocrat-class Vietnamese-now-Americans hold "Free Vietnam" demonstrations in large cities' international districts. It's somewhat analogous to the Cuban immigrant thing - the ones with the resources to make it over here were disproportionately those who DID WELL under the prior regime.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

146. American troops stopped dying.

And they stopped killing.

[Puregonzo1188]

148. Communism spread all throughout Southeast Asia and the next thing you knew

there were communist in Kansas. They got there by clicking their commie red slippers three times and saying "there's no thing like spreading like dominoes."

Which is precisely why we must now fight the terrorist over there instead of over here.


:sarcasm: (Hopefully that was no necessary).

[eagler]

151. One thing was a mass emigration of "boat people".

Many of those who didn't leave were sent to reeducation camps if they had sidedwith the south. Also the Khmer Rouge did their killing field thing in Cambodia and the Vietnamese eventually invaded
Cambodia.

[Sequoia]

152. Here's a book about that time you might find interesting.

I met the author, very charming young man...good story too. Amazon.com



From Publishers Weekly
Quang Pham came to the United States as a child just before April 1975, along with his mother and three sisters. His father, Pham Van Hoa, a South Vietnamese Air Force pilot, remain a captive of the Communist government. The son grew up in California, joined the U.S. Marines and took part in the first Persian Gulf War as a helicopter pilot. Quang Pham's well-told memoir, his book debut, tells the story of father and son, with an emphasis on the family as a whole. The author's mother, Nguyen Thi Niem, struggled mightily and succeeded in learning English, finding work and educating her children. The author's father nearly died, and nearly had his spirit nearly broken, during 12 years in re-education camps in Vietnam. His life improved measurably after immigrating to the U.S., but the marriage ended in divorce. The author had a rough time assimilating to American life, and joining the Marines presented its own problems, including anti-Asian racism. Quang Pham tells his story bluntly, without disguising his hatred of the Vietnamese Communists and his criticism of American politicians, the antiwar movement and the American news media