Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "Geopolitical Futures" channel.

  1. No, Mao and Ho Chi Minh were fighting guerrilla actions against the Japanese but were not allied with the USA. Vietnam was not a continuation of the Korean War but of Cold War policy of containment against expansionist Communism. I think this is what you are trying to say, no?
    2
  2. France did not demand that the US defend the old French colony of Indochine. The Eisenhower admin. specifically rejected intervening to save the French at Dienbienphu. The US intervention was completely due to Cold War politics. Other nations that sent troops to fight in Vietnam, were S. Korea, Australia, Thailand, New Zealand, the Philippines and the US. Of course, the S. Vietnamese also. NATO was not involved. Europe was not depopulated from WWII. Where are you getting all of this?
    2
  3. You obviously missed the entire explanation.
    2
  4. Not even close to an accurate assessment.
    1
  5.  @toasterpastries5811  No, completely false. Reread your history.
    1
  6. Not really. When the US withdrew in 73. S. Vietnam was intact and continued to be until 75, when the Demo Congress failed in its obligations towards S. Vietnam, to resupply it. If the US had responded in 75 as it had in 71, the Northern offensive would never have amounted to much of anything and the South would not have been overrun. So, the point being, the war had been over for 2 years, before S. Vietnam fell.
    1
  7. You need to listen a bit more carefully and perhaps study the Cold War a bit more closely as well.
    1
  8. No, not fantasy at all. It's simple history. If you had studied, you would know.
    1
  9.  @giovanni8304  You want my resume? If so, you won't like what you receive, likely it will discourage you. Rather, why don't you tell me exactly what you think is wrong as opposed to the general statement you made. Also, if you say that you have studied the Domino Theory, that implies you wrote a thesis on the subject, have a PHD or something similar. Lacking those, you ought not speak in this fashion. If you understand what the idea was, that is not the same as studying it, whatever you think that means. Further, the ideas being discussed by Friedman are about the Cold War in general, not the Domino Theory. He is speaking more broadly. To be fair to you, I would agree that American forces on the ground in Europe were a deterrent to Soviet Aggression but only because they threatened nuclear annihilation, not because they could have stopped the Russians from conquest of the West.
    1
  10.  @giovanni8304  you provided me with an assertion about domino theory which was not being discussed. Friedman is making an argument which can be true simultaneously with other motivations. The Cold War was fought to keep communism at bay and contained. All of the above serve that end.
    1
  11.  @giovanni8304  I appreciate your response. The Germans could have simply accepted Soviet hegemony, as could have Italy, France and others. All of these nations had substantial Marxist/Communist parties and there was a great deal of sympathy for these philosophies throughout the West until the Soviet collapse, as I previously stated. Germany also could have opted for neutrality, like Austria and Finland, which is what the Soviets wanted. The question of the use of nukes in the event of an actual Soviet invasion is a real one. Certainly, that was the rhetoric and we had the capability but once USSR was technical capacity of hitting US cities with their own nukes, one wonders if any president would have launched in the face of a solely conventional attack. Though Germany and Japan were both occupied nations, they did have a measure of control over their own national destinies. This is obvious as the years progressed. Still, I take your point. You don't have to accept Friedman's view but it is hardly foolish and two things can be true at the same time. So, the US had multiple motivations for its various actions and foreign policies during the Cold War but the overarching one was containment of international communism. This was accomplished via the Marshall Plan, Roll back in Greece, the establishment of NATO, Korea and Vietnam and the funding of guerilla movements globally, detente, the China card and finally Star Wars, AF and substantial rearmament in the 80s. Keeping Europe united against the USSR and combatting the pacifist, socialist movements therein, was critical in this project. Reassuring the Europeans of American resolve was a constant issue. So, if you would like to disprove Friedman, I am open to counter evidence. At the same time, I do not accept his De Gaulle theory as the prime mover in American involvement in S. E. Asia but am open to the idea as a component or complimentary motivation. Lastly, your final contention that the rest of Friedman's talk, was mere fantasy needs explanation. I saw nothing of the kind and found it very much meshing with actual history, so if you would like to flesh out your issue, I would be curious to see what exactly you are referring to.
    1
  12. You don't understand his argument. De Gaulle pulled France out of NATO. Originally Paris, not Brussels was the HQ of the alliance, and he is arguing the credibility of the US in Europe and with the alliance was essential to US foreign policy. So, in wars like Korea and Vietnam, the US had to show resolve to impress upon anyone doubting US intentions in Europe, that they ought not worry. If French independence from the alliance spread in Europe, the USSR would have gained immensely. Large procommunist parties existed throughout Europe until the fall of the USSR and these were backed directly by Moscow as a 5th column. The French position was based primarily on pride and not the long-term interests of the West. De Gaulle being the architect of this policy is receiving the blame by Friedman. The US did not attempt to brutally crush the Vietnamese people. It attempted to crush the NVA and Vietcong and maintain an independent, noncommunist S. Vietnam.
    1
  13. Dumb comment. Trump's policies lit a proverbial fire under NATO's collective asses, to live up to their agreement, provide 2% of GDP to defense and stop relying on the US to cover for their domestic programs.
    1
  14. If Russia invades the Baltics, it will be crushed. What is happening in Ukraine demonstrates the pathetic inadequacies of a military that has been existing on its reputation for far too long. The US will defend the NATO alliance, most certainly.
    1
  15. Nope, you just don't know your history.
    1
  16. LeMay was a big advocate of overwhelming use of airpower to include nuclear weapons. He wanted N. Vietnam completely crushed as Imperial Japan had been. Anything else was not acceptable to him. He did not appreciate the new realities of the Cold War.
    1
  17. Nothing to do with the MIC.
    1
  18. Ridiculous assertion. Vietnam was not an American war of aggression. Were that the case, the US would have marched into N. Vietnam and occupied all of Indochine.
    1
  19.  @redeunuch2989  Because you don't know anything about history.
    1
  20. Conspiracy idiocy.
    1