Shame and Revolution: Vietnam’s potent and storied anticolonialism(aeon.co)
aeon.co
Shame and Revolution: Vietnam’s potent and storied anticolonialism
https://aeon.co/essays/how-vietnam-earned-its-world-renowned-anticolonial-standing
36 comments
Vietnam invaded Cambodia to remove the Khmer Rouge from power (who were not only massacring their own population, but also attacking the Vietnamese border areas). How does that prove that the Vietnamese war against the Americans was not anti-colonial?
They occupied Cambodia for 11 years, so it's a stretch to say they were adamantly against the idea of foreign interference. Khmer Rouge were nasty to their own civilians, but so were the Viet Cong, especially early on in the conflict and to the south after the war.
I'm Vietnamese so I'm obviously biased, but what option did they have? If they left immediately, Khmer Rouge would be back in no time and the cycle would begin again. I don't think the politburo enjoyed occupying Cambodia, as Vietnam was severely punished by the international community for the occupation. It probably pushed back Vietnam's development 10-20 years.
I'm not saying there were great alternatives or that it was it was even wrong, just that it's incorrect/naive to call the (then) North Vietnamese gov't "freedom fighters" motivated primarily by anti-colonialism.
For sure the propaganda to everyday citizens and soldiers was that it was, but it's pretty clear that was just propaganda at this point.
For sure the propaganda to everyday citizens and soldiers was that it was, but it's pretty clear that was just propaganda at this point.
tbf, whilst the Viet Cong were often nasty to their civilians, the Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of their own population and had made multiple advances into Vietnam to continue a genocide that had started with ethnic Vietnamese living within Cambodia. It's not really a tenable argument the Viet Cong didn't have just cause for invasion or that their military sticking around whilst the remaining Khmer Rouge cadres waited for an opportunity to return resembled Western colonialism, and the Khmer Rouge is not fondly remembered by Cambodian nationalists or royalists or anticommunists
Hun Sen, the Cambodian they installed as deputy PM is still in power having allied with just about every faction in Cambodian politics in various elections and coups; not a testament to the vibrancy of Cambodian democracy but a testament to how the real distinction wasn't between an independent Cambodia and occupation, but between the Khmer Rouge and everything else.
Hun Sen, the Cambodian they installed as deputy PM is still in power having allied with just about every faction in Cambodian politics in various elections and coups; not a testament to the vibrancy of Cambodian democracy but a testament to how the real distinction wasn't between an independent Cambodia and occupation, but between the Khmer Rouge and everything else.
You could say the exact same about Saddam Hussein
It does miss the bit where Saddam Hussein invades Key West and massacres all its inhabitants...
The Vietnam War was anticolonial against the French, Japanese and French in succession. It didn’t suddenly become not anticolonial when the US entered en mass after the Tonkin ‘crisis’. It remained anticolonial when China attached.
Like most complex topics, it’s a little bit of both - anti-colonial and civil war.
The communist side pushed the anti-colonial narrative because it benefited them - “the only true independent representative of the Vietnamese people.” which made Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese more palatable.
But this ignores that there were many competing factions in 1945, all vying for power in an independent Vietnam - VNQDD, Dai Viet, Revolutionary party, etc. In the North they were eliminated leading up the August revolution when the communists first took power.
And while the North liked to call the South “puppets” due to the support it received from the US, the North received substantial support from the USSR and China (which it kept very quiet).
So one could argue both North and South wanted an independent Vietnam - I think that is well supported. So saying it evolved into a civil war is correct.
Of course that definition is muddied by the proxy war the great powers were carrying out through their support.
The communist side pushed the anti-colonial narrative because it benefited them - “the only true independent representative of the Vietnamese people.” which made Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese more palatable.
But this ignores that there were many competing factions in 1945, all vying for power in an independent Vietnam - VNQDD, Dai Viet, Revolutionary party, etc. In the North they were eliminated leading up the August revolution when the communists first took power.
And while the North liked to call the South “puppets” due to the support it received from the US, the North received substantial support from the USSR and China (which it kept very quiet).
So one could argue both North and South wanted an independent Vietnam - I think that is well supported. So saying it evolved into a civil war is correct.
Of course that definition is muddied by the proxy war the great powers were carrying out through their support.
> But this ignores that there were many competing factions in 1945, all vying for power in an independent Vietnam - VNQDD, Dai Viet, Revolutionary party, etc.
You're leaving out France. At Potsdam, Vietnam was to be partitioned but France asked for and got her colony back.
You're leaving out France. At Potsdam, Vietnam was to be partitioned but France asked for and got her colony back.
I didn't say it wasn't anti colonial at all, but by the time the US got actively involved it was certainly also/mostly a civil war/communist revolution.
Ho Chi Minh petitioned for Vietnamese independence at the Paris Peace Talks in 1919. He was turned down by the Big Four including France's Clemenceau and the United States' Woodrow Wilson.
BTW, the Viet Minh were our allies during WWII.
BTW, the Viet Minh were our allies during WWII.
BTW, the Viet Minh were our allies during WWII.
I’m afraid I don’t understand the point you are making.
Even Mao Zedong’s Communist Party were western allies during World War II.
For that matter Stalin’s Soviet Union was also a western ally during World War II.
After World War II everything changed.
That being said...you make a good point for bringing up the Paris Peace Conference. It is most certainly true that many of the issues in the world today are a direct result of what happened at that Peace Conference. And it is indeed very fascinating that Ho Chi Minh was apparently at that conference.
I’m afraid I don’t understand the point you are making.
Even Mao Zedong’s Communist Party were western allies during World War II.
For that matter Stalin’s Soviet Union was also a western ally during World War II.
After World War II everything changed.
That being said...you make a good point for bringing up the Paris Peace Conference. It is most certainly true that many of the issues in the world today are a direct result of what happened at that Peace Conference. And it is indeed very fascinating that Ho Chi Minh was apparently at that conference.
I think it's more correct to say the CCP allied with the KMT during WWII, or rather during their Second Sino-Japanese War. We made contact with Mao's CCP but the vast amount of supply + support with Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists.
My point was that the Viet Minh were people we could work with. We had worked with them during WWII. And by extension, we work with them now. The Vietnamese have a constant fear of being colonized by China. So we don't have to worry about that. Instead we literally forced them to ally with Russia.
Dulles, Johnson, Nixon, ... and that crew were short sighted and stupid, but certain. The Vietnam War was cast as anti-communism to a gullible American public. But the Vietnamese don't see it that way and today it isn't that way.
Now, the US Navy makes port calls in Cam Ranh Bay. There has been no change of regime in Vietnam.
Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was at Paris but not Potsdam. He'd have been great to work with. He even worked in the United States for General Motors. He knew us well.
My point was that the Viet Minh were people we could work with. We had worked with them during WWII. And by extension, we work with them now. The Vietnamese have a constant fear of being colonized by China. So we don't have to worry about that. Instead we literally forced them to ally with Russia.
Dulles, Johnson, Nixon, ... and that crew were short sighted and stupid, but certain. The Vietnam War was cast as anti-communism to a gullible American public. But the Vietnamese don't see it that way and today it isn't that way.
Now, the US Navy makes port calls in Cam Ranh Bay. There has been no change of regime in Vietnam.
Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was at Paris but not Potsdam. He'd have been great to work with. He even worked in the United States for General Motors. He knew us well.
Ah now I understand what you are saying.
Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you for clarifying.
Depends if you believe having Comunnists in charge as opposed to literally everybody else can be labeled as "anti-colonial". Then again, "anti-imperialism" often goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
Actually, anticolonial means opposition to or resistance against the system where one country controls another. It really has nothing to do with their system of government. BTW, they're run by the socialists now and, thanks to Clinton and McCain, we have normal relations with them. The US Navy makes port of call visits to Cam Ranh Bay. Maybe if we'd just done a deal with that former line manager for General Motors we could have made those port of call visits earlier and saved $800B, a 100K US lives and a couple of million Vietnamese dead. You know, mercantilism.
>It really has nothing to do with their system of government.
It's about who has the power here, which is the same principle you would take against a colonial authority. There is no right why Ho Chi Minh and the CPV should rule autocratically against the wishes of other factions. When they are sending that same opposition to concentration camps it is functionally no different to colonial authority.
>$800B, a 100K US lives and a couple of million Vietnamese dead. You know, mercantilism.
If North Vietnam didn't invade and kept to themselves we'd also save all that money and lives, and the Vietnamese wouldn't waste decades of economic stagnation. But, in the words of the late Lee Kuan Yew, the war at least gave other Southeast Asian nations the critical time to build their economies against Communism.
It's about who has the power here, which is the same principle you would take against a colonial authority. There is no right why Ho Chi Minh and the CPV should rule autocratically against the wishes of other factions. When they are sending that same opposition to concentration camps it is functionally no different to colonial authority.
>$800B, a 100K US lives and a couple of million Vietnamese dead. You know, mercantilism.
If North Vietnam didn't invade and kept to themselves we'd also save all that money and lives, and the Vietnamese wouldn't waste decades of economic stagnation. But, in the words of the late Lee Kuan Yew, the war at least gave other Southeast Asian nations the critical time to build their economies against Communism.
Yeah, keep thinking it was about Communism. We backed the Viet Minh during WWII and we backed the Khmer Rouge as a counterweight to big bad Vietnam (where our Navy now makes port calls), even to the point of defending the Khmer seat at the UN well after they lost until 1993.
Because Communism.
Because Communism.
Yeah the Cambodian-Vietnamese war wasn't colonialism.
" In the first major clash between the two former allies, the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army (KRA) invaded the Vietnamese island of Phú Quốc on 1 May 1975 (barely 24 hours after Saigon fell), claiming it was historically part of Kampuchea's territory.[17]
Nine days later, on 10 May 1975, the KRA continued its incursion by capturing the Thổ Chu Islands, where it executed 500 Vietnamese civilians. "
" In the first major clash between the two former allies, the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army (KRA) invaded the Vietnamese island of Phú Quốc on 1 May 1975 (barely 24 hours after Saigon fell), claiming it was historically part of Kampuchea's territory.[17]
Nine days later, on 10 May 1975, the KRA continued its incursion by capturing the Thổ Chu Islands, where it executed 500 Vietnamese civilians. "
They occupied Cambodia for 11 years though.
My read is that started as anti colonialism against the French but then the big powers took sides so the Vietnamese started fighting each other.
The sad thing is that a lot of problems could have been avoided if the Americans in the 50s wouldn't have been so scared of any kind of communism or socialism. They messed up Iran, they drove Egypt into the arms of the Soviets, and they may have even had friendlier relationships with Fidel Castro.
The sad thing is that a lot of problems could have been avoided if the Americans in the 50s wouldn't have been so scared of any kind of communism or socialism. They messed up Iran, they drove Egypt into the arms of the Soviets, and they may have even had friendlier relationships with Fidel Castro.
Ah but you forget that the economic exploitation of the former colonies was supposed to continue. It is not so much communism that frightened the West as it was nationalism.
This misses a lot of nuance.
Vietnam’s independence took a back seat after WW2 for the US because France made regaining its colony contingent upon playing along with NATO. France floated the idea of aligning with the USSR to scare its Western allies. So for the US it decided Europe was the more important sphere.
The US’s main strategy with the communism was one of containment - see George Kennan’s Security Council memo.
Why containment? Because the USSR was exporting revolution. The US could take the stance of doing nothing, but then the USSR would have free rein. And it wasn’t a matter of “let the people in those countries go communist if they want to”, because with USSR support a minority of people could impose communism on a population that wasn’t interested in it. Hence containment - just slow or stop other countries from going communist by matching what the USSR was doing - bankrolling and training political groups in those countries.
So doing nothing with Vietnam and letting France regain their colony aligned with containing further expansion of communist in South East Asia. If Vietnam went back to a French colony, then communism wouldn’t take hold (or it would at least be difficult for it).
Vietnam’s independence took a back seat after WW2 for the US because France made regaining its colony contingent upon playing along with NATO. France floated the idea of aligning with the USSR to scare its Western allies. So for the US it decided Europe was the more important sphere.
The US’s main strategy with the communism was one of containment - see George Kennan’s Security Council memo.
Why containment? Because the USSR was exporting revolution. The US could take the stance of doing nothing, but then the USSR would have free rein. And it wasn’t a matter of “let the people in those countries go communist if they want to”, because with USSR support a minority of people could impose communism on a population that wasn’t interested in it. Hence containment - just slow or stop other countries from going communist by matching what the USSR was doing - bankrolling and training political groups in those countries.
So doing nothing with Vietnam and letting France regain their colony aligned with containing further expansion of communist in South East Asia. If Vietnam went back to a French colony, then communism wouldn’t take hold (or it would at least be difficult for it).
Worthwhile read!
I’m a huge nerd when it come to the First and Second Indochina wars. It’s a super interesting mixture of Western colonialism (France), Eastern colonialism (Japan), Cold War (China, USSR, USA, South Korea, AUSNZ), civil war (all the competing factions in Vietnam), guerilla and conventional warfare, geopolitical propaganda, etc
It has something for every history buff.
But I think this article does a nice job of scratching the surface of the mythology that surrounds the American War. If the communists get credit for anything, it’s communication both locally and globally, and their ability to use those stories to unite half of a country to fight and sacrifice for over 30 years to fight opponents (both foreigner and Vietnamese).
I lived in Vietnam for about 5 years and that same mythology is still use by the government to unite people (not a knock as every country does this).
But if you scratch below the surface (as this article does) you pretty quickly find out the national mythology isn’t true at all
But the current government still knows how to leverage the story - a great example is this year’s 50th anniversary of the end of the American War.
Being able to celebrate defeating the US at the same time you’re attempting to strength your relationship with the US is tricky. How did they do it? The 50th celebration is also the 30th celebration of normalization of the Vietnam-US relationship. So they can tell one story locally, and another internationally and win both sides.
I’m a huge nerd when it come to the First and Second Indochina wars. It’s a super interesting mixture of Western colonialism (France), Eastern colonialism (Japan), Cold War (China, USSR, USA, South Korea, AUSNZ), civil war (all the competing factions in Vietnam), guerilla and conventional warfare, geopolitical propaganda, etc
It has something for every history buff.
But I think this article does a nice job of scratching the surface of the mythology that surrounds the American War. If the communists get credit for anything, it’s communication both locally and globally, and their ability to use those stories to unite half of a country to fight and sacrifice for over 30 years to fight opponents (both foreigner and Vietnamese).
I lived in Vietnam for about 5 years and that same mythology is still use by the government to unite people (not a knock as every country does this).
But if you scratch below the surface (as this article does) you pretty quickly find out the national mythology isn’t true at all
But the current government still knows how to leverage the story - a great example is this year’s 50th anniversary of the end of the American War.
Being able to celebrate defeating the US at the same time you’re attempting to strength your relationship with the US is tricky. How did they do it? The 50th celebration is also the 30th celebration of normalization of the Vietnam-US relationship. So they can tell one story locally, and another internationally and win both sides.
The celebration now mainly focuses on “unification”, with some slight flavor of “independence/ liberation of the South”. The US is not even mentioned. So the idea is that we celebrate the finality of having a unified and independent country after a very long period of not being so.
The message is very deliberate and has been gradually more focused on the “unification” aspect since at least 2014-2015.
The message is very deliberate and has been gradually more focused on the “unification” aspect since at least 2014-2015.
Imagine if South Vietnam had remained independent. If it had become a thriving prosperous free democracy like South Korea or Taiwan.
Would we still be talking about “Vietnam’s storied anti colonialism” today?
How often do we talk about Korean anti colonialism or Chinese anti colonialism nowadays? Not much. When people talk about Korea and China nowadays it is in the context of the differences between North and South Korea and the differences between mainland China and the free democratic Chinese[1] island that is Taiwan.
When I look back at the American counterculture movement and how triumphant those people were that the Vietnam War was over…and then you read about the end of South Vietnam….the fall of Saigon… and then you look at where South Korea and Taiwan are today….you can’t help but wonder…
And many of these stories of Vietnam are paternalistic. They deny the agency of the South Vietnamese.
[1] By this I mean Taiwan is Chinese in terms of culture.
Would we still be talking about “Vietnam’s storied anti colonialism” today?
How often do we talk about Korean anti colonialism or Chinese anti colonialism nowadays? Not much. When people talk about Korea and China nowadays it is in the context of the differences between North and South Korea and the differences between mainland China and the free democratic Chinese[1] island that is Taiwan.
When I look back at the American counterculture movement and how triumphant those people were that the Vietnam War was over…and then you read about the end of South Vietnam….the fall of Saigon… and then you look at where South Korea and Taiwan are today….you can’t help but wonder…
And many of these stories of Vietnam are paternalistic. They deny the agency of the South Vietnamese.
[1] By this I mean Taiwan is Chinese in terms of culture.
> Imagine if South Vietnam had remained independent. If it had become a thriving prosperous free democracy like South Korea or Taiwan.
will never happen.
it annoys me to no end that ever americans out there always assume that the war was between north and south vietnam, while in reality it was not. VCs were mostly southern people, the conflicts were mostly between south vietnam and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam which was found and led by southern vietnamese.
which mean the conflict would never stop, even without the help from north vietnam or soviet.
will never happen.
it annoys me to no end that ever americans out there always assume that the war was between north and south vietnam, while in reality it was not. VCs were mostly southern people, the conflicts were mostly between south vietnam and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam which was found and led by southern vietnamese.
which mean the conflict would never stop, even without the help from north vietnam or soviet.
> How often do we talk about Korean anti colonialism or Chinese anti colonialism nowadays? Not much.
Americans don't talk much about Chinese anti-colonialism nowadays, but people in other parts of the world (particularly in China and Africa) do.
Americans don't talk much about Chinese anti-colonialism nowadays, but people in other parts of the world (particularly in China and Africa) do.
[deleted]
How often do we talk about Korean anti colonialism or Chinese anti colonialism nowadays?
These are central to the recent histories of both countries and a big part of their own national mythologies. Comes up directly and indirectly all the time.
These are central to the recent histories of both countries and a big part of their own national mythologies. Comes up directly and indirectly all the time.
> magine if South Vietnam had remained independent. If it had become a thriving prosperous free democracy
That’s not obvious. For starters South Korea was a brutal and oppressive dictatorship during and after the war (not that much better than NK). It only became a democracy about the same time (coincidentally) as the USSR began collapsing. Same as Taiwan for that matter…
Also it’s a sample of one.. there are plenty of other countries where the US intervened that ended up not doing very well.
> you can’t help but wonder
About what? Waging the war indefinitely or direct invasion of North Vietnam? Because there weren’t really that many other options..
That’s not obvious. For starters South Korea was a brutal and oppressive dictatorship during and after the war (not that much better than NK). It only became a democracy about the same time (coincidentally) as the USSR began collapsing. Same as Taiwan for that matter…
Also it’s a sample of one.. there are plenty of other countries where the US intervened that ended up not doing very well.
> you can’t help but wonder
About what? Waging the war indefinitely or direct invasion of North Vietnam? Because there weren’t really that many other options..
It’s not just a sample of one. You are forgetting about the Marshall Plan. About West and East Germany. About when the Berlin Wall came down.
There’s no reason South Vietnam couldn’t have become like South Korea or Taiwan one day. We are all human beings and deep down aren’t we all alike and want the same things?
https://youtu.be/5F_aHt34a-g
There’s no reason South Vietnam couldn’t have become like South Korea or Taiwan one day. We are all human beings and deep down aren’t we all alike and want the same things?
https://youtu.be/5F_aHt34a-g
> You are forgetting
No, I just don’t think they are applicable. Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam were are all very poor and rural Germany was one of the main industrial powers for the at least 50-60 years preceding WW2.
> Marshall Plan
the total inflation adjusted amount of grants and loans that went to Germany was equal to about 32 billion dollars. That’s less than the amount of economic aid US gave to Afghanistan since 2001.
But yeah, I agree that there are no biological reasons preventing any poor or underdeveloped from becoming successful.
No, I just don’t think they are applicable. Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam were are all very poor and rural Germany was one of the main industrial powers for the at least 50-60 years preceding WW2.
> Marshall Plan
the total inflation adjusted amount of grants and loans that went to Germany was equal to about 32 billion dollars. That’s less than the amount of economic aid US gave to Afghanistan since 2001.
But yeah, I agree that there are no biological reasons preventing any poor or underdeveloped from becoming successful.
> That’s not obvious. For starters South Korea was a brutal and oppressive dictatorship during and after the war (not that much better than NK).
So what? So were most European countries before they became democracies. Name a successful democracy that didn’t go through such a phase to consolidate the state?
So what? So were most European countries before they became democracies. Name a successful democracy that didn’t go through such a phase to consolidate the state?
Certainly fighting the French was motivated by this, however the last 20 years of the war it was more a civil war between the communists and not-communists, a North vs South civil war, and proxy fight backed by both the USSR and the west.
I don't have references handy but it's interesting to read the experiences and feelings of the Viet Minh in South Vietnam, and how they were sidelined once the North took over. Also Vietnam invading Cambodia soon after points out that fighting colonialism was not a prime motivation of the northern leadership.