Amazon Discussion: "Vietnam: American Holocaust" in the history community

Look at the paperwork on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and look what the bombs actually did.

>>Note: when we finally bombed Hanoi, the Hanoi government went bananas and said that, our bombing of their rail links had killed under 1600 civilians...Do you have any idea how few that is, when you are dropping bombs from 50,ooo feet?<<For the people who died it isn't insignificant. Perhaps if a few of you lost your lives you would stop trivializing death.

>>And since you want to compare Vietnam to the Holocaust, <<Where did I say I wanted to compare them? Here is a strawman argument from a bellows of hot air.

>>) You don't know anything about the bombing campaign do you? You simply make up a conclusion and present it.2) "You don't have to show intentional plans to target civilians--what military or political leader documents their war crimes?"<<Coming from someone who hasn't demonstrated any knowledge of the topic whatsoever.Everytime the US carries out a bombing mission they know full well they might well kill civilians. You seem to want to attribute war crimes to tons of paperwork. Paperwork is often used to waste time, money and to cover up what is really going on--that includes the corrupt and wasteful US military.

That was not a strawman MB. It was a question with rhetorical effect. Please, tell us your claims instead of making us do all the work.

Will,The official version of the Hue Massacre is very questionable. Please read the following article discussing this. Many of the buried victims may have been civilians killed by the stupendous amount of fire power used to retake Hue. The issue of the "black lists" documents and how accurately they were translated is another issue.http://chss.montclair.edu/English/furr/Vietnam/huemyth/mythofhuemassacre.pdfAnd those that left in boats did so for a lot of reasons. There is a very good book that covered this in detail titled, "The Boat People: An Age Investigation." (Age is an Australian periodical). It is interesting that hardly any were poor peasants or farmers. Nearly all were former government officials, white collar employees, business people, etc.Many were affluent Chinese who simply didn't want to live under communism and thought they would be "reeducated" and have to work as farmers.Others thought they were going to get caught in the cross-fire between hostiliies then between Vietnam and China. Some young men said they didn't want to get ordered to compulsory military service after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.And there were other reasons.So the situation is not quite as simple as you imply.

Will Brownell: Thank you for your post, as a RVN Vet USMC, you hit the spot, but here the truth comes conveniently from those textbook experts who only read one side.In certain circles it has been and is "COOL" to dispatch our service as useless and murderous. Just like during our war, no rest for us, no respect, and to think every day now, guys are dying, reading this.Had they listened to us, we probably never started IRAQ2, and Afghan is going to be a surprise unless OBAMA gets lucky.There is a reason both the English and Russians(with short supply lines lost). Good Luck buddy in your life,we deserved more, but even here their is ignorance and a questionable patriotism.We make mistakes, we own up to them, who else has?

Sorry, read the edited reply, I hit 'post' by accident.

M?

"And we punished the guilty, while they alleged they were innocent!Also: if they were decent people, why have more than 1.3 million Vietnamese risked all, going off in rickety boats in to the S. China Sea, to get away?There is more to say, but this says a lot."Will Brownell, PhD (Columbia' 93),Mr. Brownell,Not to defend immoral actions whatsoever but innocence needs intercultural interpetation when in the international arena. Vietnamese values are different, so when we use our values as a yardstick the measurements are bound to be skewed. Other cultures are in different phases of development than ours, and we have more wealth, refinement, and capability; all can and are used in ways that make our actions rise above the standards of societies different than ours, who lack these things. Judging them from on high is a mistake. They are comparatively backwards, it follows that their values would also be this way. This is human nature, the saying that some asian societies do not value life as much as ours does is actually true, but the break they deserve is one of comparative development. There are human rights abuses in our past where we did not value human life as high as we do now.

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen,As a 'Nam vet, and as someone who got a PhD in 'Nam history at an Ivy League college (viz. Columbia), I regret your ideas here.Note: when we finally bombed Hanoi, the Hanoi government went bananas and said that, our bombing of their rail links had killed under 1600 civilians...Do you have any idea how few that is, when you are dropping bombs from 50,ooo feet?Another example:If you really want to complain about indifference to deaths in a war, wold any of you care to read Jules Roy's magisterial book, DIENBIENPHU, which quote the top enemy general, Giap, as saying: "Three hundred thousand people on earth die every day. The death of no one individual matters even a little..."Also: compare our worst act in 'Nam (My Lai) with the enemy's worst (i.e., the slaughter of civilians in Hue in '68) and see what is the difference: our 400 dead, max, versus the enemy's 4300 dead...And we punished the guilty, while they alleged they were innocent!Also: if they were decent people, why have more than 1.3 million Vietnamese risked all, going off in rickety boats in to the S. China Sea, to get away?There is more to say, but this says a lot.Will Brownell, PhD (Columbia' 93),Vietnam vet, '68email:willbrownell@msn.com

Mark :<< Why should I care? You have shown no familiarity with events and all you seem to know is the story taught by rote to small children. Geographical location and languages don't impress me. Facts and how a person goes about arguing impress me. >>I live and work in Dhaka and Bengali is my native language (I'm not a Bangladeshi though). I personally know and have talked to decorated war heroes of the conflict. What I know about the 71 war is of course not at an expert level (I study the WWII more deeply), but it seems light-years beyond your comprehension. Of course muslims were also the victims in 1971. Of course all Pakistani soldiers did not commit warcrimes (I wrote earlier that many fought honourably). Despite that, genocide was committed (in Dhaka two place are at Sankharibazaar and Dhaka University Jagannath Hall. Intellectuals, housewives, girl students of university - all brutally killed, some after being tortured.The numbers quoted range from 1 million to 3 million. No comments on them - have not studied them. The refugee flow into India was close to 10 million - this figure is widely accepted.As I said, one cannot understand many of the incidents during this time if one doesn't know Bengali - that's the language in which many of the written and oral histories of the civil war exist.People who have some interest in 'facts' rather than assertions (by me or anyone else) can go through the following link (declassified U.S. Government records) including the famous "Blood telegram"http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e7/48213.htmMostly well-known documents to those who've studied the war.

"The purpose of the bombing campaigns was to destroy the North's ability to conduct war and supply the VC in the south, etc. You don't have to show intentional plans to target civilians--what military or political leader documents their war crimes? Not many."1) You don't know anything about the bombing campaign do you? You simply make up a conclusion and present it. 2) "You don't have to show intentional plans to target civilians--what military or political leader documents their war crimes?"Well, the Germans and Japanese for two cases during the second world war. And since you want to compare Vietnam to the Holocaust, it would seem reasonable that you would present an American Vietnam War equivelent to the German Commissar Order. And as for bombing missions, every single mission of a bomber involved a mountain of paperwork. Somewhere in all that paperwork. In the targeting. In the mission plan. In SOMETHING there must have been some indication of a plan to target civilians with bombs. I mean was all the paperwork faked and the real orders whispered to the bomber crews on the runway?And if they were really trying to kill civilians, why didn't they flatten Hanoi and other cities from one end to the other? Why did they run mission after mission to take out single bridges at great cost if their goal was to saturation bomb North Vietnam.

"I will take it back. Hilarious does not cut it - delusional is a closer description. The military did not spare anyone in West Pakistan ?"Mr. Kacmarek,Are you interested in a serious conversation or do you want to play games. If you wish to act like a child, I will explain to you as if you were a child.My statement was that there were plenty of muslim victims in Bengal during the war. If you know anything about the war, you know that to be true. No matter how much certain groups attempt to write the history of the conflict to be that Mother India and Father Russia selflessly coming to save their Hindu children from the evil muslims, the conflict was significantly more complicated than that. "Now this is going to come as a nasty shock, my friend. But ... do you know what my native language is? And where I am commenting from ? Go on, take a wild guess."Why should I care? You have shown no familiarity with events and all you seem to know is the story taught by rote to small children. Geographical location and languages don't impress me. Facts and how a person goes about arguing impress me. What you have shown me is arrogance and a complete lack of any command of the facts about the war beyond the old simple-minded political version from years ago.

"And what is your outrageous claim MB? That the US didn't kill any civilians in the VW? That it didn't do anything wrong so long as it didn't INTEND to do that (as if a nation could INTEND something anyway). "This is known as a "strawman". When you want to engage in a real conversation, let me know.

I am genuinely saddened by the recent tone and tenor of this discussion -- ad hominem attacks, intellectual arrogance, petty put-downs, overwheening egoes, and plain old mean-spiritedness. Can't y'all respectfully disagree with one another without descending into this dyspeptic morass of accusation and recrimination? I will now make my exit from this discussion, before the inevitable incomming artillery barrage of insults begins. Peace & Love,Jimmy James

Mark<< Look, I understand exactly where you are coming from. What you are doing is repeating Indian war propaganda from that time designed to justify their own cynical policies. The entire population of West Pakistan was a target. The military didn't spare anyone.The difference between us is that I'm interested in real history and you are just replaying a broken record made decades ago. I doubt you know anything about the Bhuttos, Pakistan or anything beyond the version of events you were taught by rote probably a long time ago. >>I will take it back. Hilarious does not cut it - delusional is a closer description. The military did not spare anyone in West Pakistan ? Now this is going to come as a nasty shock, my friend. But ... do you know what my native language is? And where I am commenting from ? Go on, take a wild guess.

>>Again, to prove what you want to claim you would need to show examples of plans and orders that target civilians. I can't prove a negative and its your obligation to make your own case.<<The purpose of the bombing campaigns was to destroy the North's ability to conduct war and supply the VC in the south, etc. You don't have to show intentional plans to target civilians--what military or political leader documents their war crimes? Not many.

And what is your outrageous claim MB? That the US didn't kill any civilians in the VW? That it didn't do anything wrong so long as it didn't INTEND to do that (as if a nation could INTEND something anyway).

>>Again, to prove what you want to claim you would need to show examples of plans and orders that target civilians. I can't prove a negative and its your obligation to make your own case.<<No I don't. I don't have to prove anything to you. I suggest you look up what saturation bombing means. It means using redundant ordinance on specified target areas.Yes, all war is murder. It's state-sponsored terror.