View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
Mr. Schwab may be behind the times when he says, "Clearly the Vietnam Wars had disastrous effects on Indochina and on the United States as well." He mentions "a pervasive drug culture in the U.S., in addition to the scars that are apparent in American public memory." This was partly true in the past--some drugs, some scars, some failure in Indochina. However, presently I do not really believe Americans by and large are scarred by Vietnam anymore. In fact, I believe just the opposite may be true when recalling the invasion of Grenada, Panama, US efforts in Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. I read somewhere that there are US forces spread around the world, working with more nations today than there have ever been. I detect some positive reconsideration going on in the minds of some Americans when the subject of Vietnam comes up. I detect more respect toward veterans of Vietnam by younger folks. In fact, a presidential candidate made his service in Vietnam the focus of his campaign while virtually erasing any antiwar sentiment he had back then--which was substantial. All of a sudden Vietnam has a positive residue with the younger set. On Truman and Ho, I do not reason that Truman should have recognized Ho Chi Minh. Ho did not speak for all Vietnamese. There were several groups and they were not communists. Ho was the product of the Comintern. He was not bringing nationalism to Vietnam. It was there before him. Ho brought communism to Vietnam. Communism was not a Vietnamese ideology. It was born out of Western notions. As for accepting Ho as the leader of all Vietnam? Why would Truman respond to Ho Chi Minh when even Stalin would not answer Ho's letters? Rob MacNichol Irvine Valley College