Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "PeriscopeFilm"
channel.
-
@stevek8829 : I was born well before the Vietnam War - as you may see if you google my name or check my other posts in YouTube. I'm 75. I remember listening to Radio Peking during the Vietnam War - it was very entertaining. At one point they claimed North Vietnam had sunk an Australian Navy aircraft carrier. We had only one - a worn out World War 2 surplus British carrier (HMAS Melbourne), and it was tied up at its base at the time, and hardly ever went anywhere (until it was sold to China).
It later was revealed that Radio Peking had nobody that spoke English other than the foreign-born English programme announcer, and he was deliberately undermining them by making ridiculous claims. When they found out he was in very deep poo.
I was called up for service in Vietnam, but got a deferment to complete my 5-year trade training.
Thanks for shooting your own argument. If a guy is not non-combatant, then he is combatant, and if he is combatant then his mission is to kill and destroy and be shot at himself. Australians sent to Vietnam were also called "advisors" as this was a legal loophole that meant the government didn't have to declare war on Vietnam and China, but nobody involved thought they were anything but fighting combatants.
Any other point you think I got wrong?
We Australians actually very much appreciated US help in WW2. The US came because our government realised Britain couldn't care less, and their generals were pretty hopeless anyway - so our government requested the loan of an American general to take charge of Australian forces. The US sent a retired Gen MacArthur, who was a very considerable improvement over the average British general, and Australian generals too, as they were all British trained and selected by written examination, not ability. But we had much to offer the US too - it was win-win for both.
1
-
@stevek8829 : Grunts, NCO's, officers - it makes no difference. Many "advisors" were grunts that were trained and employed as specialists - eg communications, mechanics, supply clerks. Makes no difference, as they were providing their specialities to troops of their own country, not providing or training Vietnamese personnel without regard for which side they were on.
The government that "invited" the US in was not legitimate because it had not won power through free elections, as I pointed out before. A third country, such as USA, cannot under such a situation morally decide to accept such an "invitation" just because it means fighting communists.
It's on record that China was not interested in imperialistic expansion to the south. Mao and his leadership had enough on their hands getting China organised, and securing places they had some claim to, eg Tibet. The domino theory advanced by both the US and Australian governments as justification was a load of nonsense. However, North Vietnam asked China for help getting the Americans out, and Mao decided to make some sacrifice of resources and help out. The help from China was not entirely right either, but at least as legit as the USA sending forces.
Other governments in the region were also not entirely legitimate but that does not alter things. Just because Bill killed Fred, it does not make John any less guilty of killing or wounding Martin.
Putin invading Ukraine is an interesting situation - he has some justification arising from old agreements between Stalin, Churchill, and Truman. On balance I consider he is very much in the wrong, because Ukrainians never had any say in these agreements, and were held down by USSR might, while it lasted. So, it is wrong, but again a wrong here does not make a wrong in Vietnam right.
There is indeed a long history of nations sending armed forces as advisors or combatants to other countries. So what? How does that make the USA starting a war in Vietnam a right thing to do?
History shows that humans are pretty warlike - they have been conducting wars ever since there were tribes. Countries or primitive tribes - there has always been strong groups forcing their way over weaker groups - or thinking they are strong and trying to. It doesn't make it right.
1
-
1
-
@stevek8829 : The ones that didn't like it, or were likely to be downgraded because they were Catholic etc, left. Lots came here to Australia, some went to the USA. The bulk stayed in their own country.
A friend of mine is Vietnamese and has been back several times to see her parents. They have been here too - I've met them. There certainly doesn't seem to be any problem. Her story is pretty typical.
You remind me of an old but very well known joke. Like all good jokes, it's funny because it is based on reality:-
A chap asked a home owner "how many people does it take to change a light globe? He was answered "Just one."
A chap asked a government employee "how many people does it take to change a light globe?" He was answered "Four - one to write the procedure, one to supervise, you need a safety officer, and oh, someone to change the globe."
A chap asked a unionist "how many people does it take to change a light globe?" He was answered "I don't know - it's not my job to change globes."
A chap asked a Vietnam veteran "How many people does it take to change a light globe?" He was answered "YOU WOULDN"T KNOW, WOULD YOU? YOU WEREN'T THERE!"
Steve K, khi bạn ở Việt Nam, nếu bạn thực sự ở đó, bạn có dành thời gian để học bất kỳ ngôn ngữ địa phương nào và làm quen với người dân không? Hay bạn chỉ đi đến các quán bar nữ tính?
1
-
1
-
@stevek8829 : Greece has nothing to do with Vietnam. Separate part of the world, separate issues.
The USA had a lot more justification to be in Korea, but the Korean War too was a war that didn't need to happen. Same as Vietnam, it came about because the fool Mountbatten, when supreme commander of the whole area, decided to split Korea in two, without consulting the locals and without bothering to look into what would happen. Mountbatten seemed not to understand what communism was or why it was a force to be reckoned with. He expected Chiang Kai-shek to run China and have influence and political control over North Korea and North Vietnam, and of course Chiang didn't - Mao drove him out and limitted Chiang to Taiwan Island. Mountbatten thought Chiang Kai-shek, Churchill, Truman, and Stalin were all good, benign, capable, and legitimate leaders, and of course Chiang wasn't - he wasn't anywhere near the same league. (Stalin was hardly benign, and legitimacy was doubtful, but at least he was capable). Mountbatten was fully aware that Stalin, Churchill, and Truman agreed to carve the world up into three political influence spheres - he was there at the conference.
If Mountbattern had not split Korea, it's probable that the communists, not having re-unification as an excuse/justification, would not have got anywhere, just as MacArthur was able to easily deal with them in Japan.
In Vietnam, 're-education' was applied to those who sided with the American forces. You can hardly blame them - the USA was the invading enemy. In Western countries, traitors were traditionally executed.
Korea was somewhat different.
But terror has never been confined to communists. Look at the area bombing of residential areas of German cities in WW2 by Britain. Whenever people trained to make war and kill get control, there tends to be some that go beyond what's reasonable and terrorise civilians/non-combatants. It happened in WW2 Europe (all sides), it happened in Afghanistan (Australian war crimes very much in the news), and it's happening in Ukraine - probably by both sides, but certainly be the non-communist Russians.
1
-
@stevek8829 : I see you have not grasped a very simple and fundamental reason why Greece was different.
The principle is this:- Both Vietnam and Korea were arbitarily split in two by a decision of a British supreme commander without any regard for what the Vietnamese and Koreans wanted, and without any regard to regional affairs. Greece was not so split.
In the case of Vietnam, the south was given back to France, a pre-World War 2 colonial power there. The Vietnamese, north and south, wanted 2 things: 1) the French driven out, and 2) unification. They sought and obtained assistance of China to achieve that, as the USA refused to help. This resulted in a war between North Korea and the USA with the South just wishing the Americans would just go and let them re-unify. The USA installed a puppet government (Thieu government) to do their bidding. Hence it wasn't a pure civil war - it was a war between Vietnam and USA (with foolish Australia coming in on the American side).
Korea was a bit different - both North and South wanted to re-unify (they both still do - it is official with both governments) but the South wanted to be in charge and run Korea under their system, and the North wanted to be in charge and run it with their system. The result was a civil war and the USA blundered in to help the South.
Greek history is very complicated, but the Third Civil War, that occurred just after WW2, was essentially a pure civil war - Greeks fighting Greeks, albeit one side supported politically principally by Britain, and the other side politically supported by the USSR. The USA kept its military nose out of it. But subsequent to the Greeks sorting themselves out and aligning with NATO, the USA gave economic aid under the Marshal Plan, which was a much better idea.
It's a pity the USA has not treated other countries the same way - that is, let them sort themselves out, and when they've done that, give economic help.
The USA itself had a civil war with much killing and horror. The country sorted itself out and became an industrial powerhouse. How do you think it would have gone, if say there was another powerful country that had decided to come in and fight on one side or the other? I suggest it would have just caused more trouble and strife, for a longer period. It would not have helped solve the problem.
1
-
@stevek8829 : No, Pol Pot is NOT a hero to me. Why on earth would he be?
But, I don't know much about Pol Pot and Cambodia - just the general awareness that most people here have.
On Vietnam, I have over the years read quite a bit about it, because:-
1. I was a young adult during the Vietnam War (aged 15 went the first Australian troops went to Vietnam - those "advisors" that fought, and aged 28 when the War ended.)
2. The USA asked Australia to send troops and the Australian government immediately agreed. This was EXTREMELY controversial at the time and led to very large protests around the country.
3. I witnessed some of those mass protests.
4. To make up the numbers the USA asked for, the Australian Government implemented conscription. I was called up. About 50,000 Australian men served in Vietnam, far beyond the capability of our normal peacetime military strength. 50,000 is pretty tiny compared to the US commitment of 2.7 million men, but we were certainly there - shooting and getting shot at.
5. I have several Vietnam Vets as friends and sometimes discuss the Vietnam War with them.
6. I have many Vietnamese as friends and work colleagues, as many Vietnamese have emigrated here.
7. The US forces lost the War. This was unexpected at the time, as US forces were highly effective in World War 2. However even a cursory read of the available literature shows that the US military effort in Vietnam was shambolic - which led me to try and find out why. I have now a fairly good idea on that, but I won't go into it now as this post is long enough.
Basically, as I said, after WW2 was over, the French tried to control Vietnam again. The Vietnamese had had enough of foreigners controlling their country by force - in the modern age, the French, then the Japanese, then the French again. They asked the US for help expelling the French, didn't get it, so they turned to China. Mao said. yep, we'll help, but you must go communist. Ho Chi Min was happy with that deal. Vietnamese generally were not so happy, but considered communism an acceptable price to get unified and independent. The USA didn't like Vietnam going communist and intervened.
You said the US intervention was not of evil intent. No it wasn't - the US Government thought it was doing a fair thing. But intent and reality are two different things.
The result was evil. The US action was immoral - because what style of government any country adopts is none of the USA's business.
It is perhaps understandable that the US would not help in getting the French out, which likely would have resulted in no war and no communist government, as the US was having enough trouble trying to have good relations with de Gaule at the time.
There is a subtlety behind all this. As I also said in this thread, Stalin, Churchill, and Truman met together and carved up the world between them, allocating spheres of influence. Sort of negotiating world peace in return for allowing limited Soviet expansion. Some people believe that the US government thought that Vietnam was a communist expansion beyond what was agreed, and thus they needed to show the Russian/Chinese block they were not going to stand for breaking the agreed limits,
The root of the trouble was the incompetence of Mountbatten in doing these North/South divisions. Incidentally he stuffed up in partitioning India as well - caused unnecessary death of millions, and leaving us with another possible cause of a nuclear war.
I take it, since you claim to have done some reading, that you were aware of Mountbatten and his stuff-up?
1
-
1
-
@Spookieham : Presumably you are referring to the fact that the USA was not involved militarily until December 1941.
The fact is, until then the War was not a World War and had nothing to do with the USA, no more than for any other neutral on non-involved country. Britain had declared war on Germany in 1939, which was a bit like an arrogant kid in the schoolyard giving cheek to the school bully, who of course said "Want to have a go, do you? Right ho then." The other kids in the yard did not get involved, which is as it should be.
Due to the pre-existing Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour in December 1941, that made the USA at war with all three by default. To clear the air and provide their soldier with a legal basis, the USA and Germany promptly declared war on each other simultaneously.
1
-
@willarddevoe5893 : You remain very wrong. Ford was in Australia long before WW2 and MacArthur, beginning assembly of cars and trucks in 1925. Philco has never had a presence nor marketed in Australia. Boeing airplanes became common in Australia after WW2 and MacArthur gone - and they have been very good airplanes. Martin pretty much unknown in Australia. GM commenced manufacturing cars and trucks in Australia in 1948, after MacArthur long gone, and at the invitation and enticement by the Australian government, and quickly became the most popular brand due to their comfort, reliability, and low cost.
As I and others has posted, MacArthur was not perfect, especially in Korea when he was quite old. But he was in fact a very very good commander. He had a sense of his own destiny (or as might be put, a swelled head), but his strategy for fighting the Japanese (leap frogging), and the post war reconstruction of Japan and reform of its government and recasting of the emperor was brilliant. And, by the way, done against the opinions of senior generals in the US and Australian forces, and politicians in US and Australia. He proved them all wrong. He suppressed the communists in Japan and kept the Russians out.
Yes, America's might would have prevailed in WW2 without MacArthur - after all he was in command of only an area allocated to him - a fraction of the Pacific region. But he ran that area very well.
1
-
1
-
1