[Swiftwater Gazette] Fw: Understanding Marxism

Ed kroposki kroposki at att.net
Tue Jul 18 17:46:41 EDT 2017

Continued readings on Marxism
Castan eye of the PBS production, 'The Vietnam War'
Hereare excerpts from article in American Thinker about the upcomingseries.
….........Theantiwar movement was not at all monolithic. Supporters covered awide range, from total pacifist Quakers at one end to passionatesupporters of Communism at the other. 
Therewere many idealists in it who thought the war was unjust and ourconduct of it objectionable, as well as students who were terrifiedof the draft, and some who just found it the cause of the day. Butsome of the primary figures leading the movement were not so muchopposed to the war as they were in favor of Hanoi succeeding in thewar it had started.
Thekey question is whether the U.S. opposition to Communism during theCold War (1947 to 1989) was justifiable. 
Theanswer is that Communism (Marxism) on a national level is a utopianideal that can function only with the enforcement of a police state(Leninism) or a genocidal criminal regime (Stalinism). 
Italways requires an external enemy to justify the continuous hardships and repression of its population and always claims that itsinternational duty is to spread Communism. When Ho Chi Minhestablished the Vietnam Communist Party in 1930, there was nointention of limiting its expansionist ambitions to Vietnam, and hesubsequently changed the name to the Indochinese Communist Party atthe request of the Comintern in Moscow.
Thepeople of Vietnam today live in one of the most corrupt and despoticregimes in the world, with one of the worst records in upholdingbasic human rights, as documented by several international agencies. Laos and Cambodia are vassal states of Vietnam, and Hanoi has manypowerful agents in each, with enormous influence on events there. 
Whenthe tanks of the North Vietnamese Army rolled into Saigon in 1975,the "anti-war" movement congratulated itself onfacilitating that victory. In the U.S. cultural media andacademia, that same self-congratulatory mentality is reinforceddespite the fact that more people were killed in the ten yearsfollowing the North Vietnamese takeover of South Vietnam than in thepreceding fifteen years of war. Infant and maternalmortality doubled under Communist rule, and well over a millionpeople went into concentration camps, some for up to 18 years. Underthe Saigon government, despite corruption and favoritism, there was afree press, with many publications thriving. All that stopped deadin April '75.
SaddamHussein and Osama bin Laden both expressed their belief that if thediminutive Vietnamese could defeat the Americans, they could do so aswell.  The antiwar faction should take responsibility for thewars we have had to fight since Vietnam because of their encouragement of our enemies.
Thereis a profound difference between being defeated and forfeiting agame. 
 That is what happened after Kissinger brought back aless than ideal, but politically acceptable, peace accord in 1973. It was fundamentally flawed in several ways, such as allowing 150,000NVA to remain in South Vietnamese territory, but its main validpoints were the promise of the North to never invade the South andthe promise of the USA to support the South as needed to offsetCommunist strengths. In 1972, the North trashed their promise andinvaded with multiple divisions in fully conventional warfare, andthe USA kept its promise by supplying the air power that gave theARVN an even chance to defeat the invaders – which they did, inlarger battles than any ever fought by U.S. forces.  Vietnamizationhad worked.
Butthen Congress undermined the agreement by cutting the replacement material promised to our ally and codified in the agreement. Thatsame Congress further nullified the accords by forbidding the use ofany U.S. air power to punish egregious North Vietnamese violations ofthe agreements.  Those members of Congress should have known what theresult of their actions would be but never acknowledged it. Thus,the North Vietnamese leader boasted then that "the Americanswill not come back now even if we offer them candy."  Withmassive support from Moscow and two years of very detailedpreparations, the fate of South Vietnam was sealed.
Historiansand serious viewers of Burns's narrative should study the factual history of the Second Indochina War to detect any misleadingimplications and factual omissions that may be found in his visualnarrative. PBS would do well to offer more than a token effort topromote Burns's wish for open discourse on this important andextremely relevant subject.
StephenSherman is the series editor for the VVFH publications on the SecondIndochina War. He served as a civil affairs/psy-ops officer with 5th Special Forces Group (Abn) in Pleiku and Nha Trang, Vietnam,1967-1968.  He acts as an archivist and historian to document theefforts of Special Forces in Southeast Asia, 1954-1975. He has alsobeen a frequent presenter and participant in the Vietnam Symposia atTexas Tech University.----// ----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com/pipermail/swiftwatergazette/attachments/20170718/922101f4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the SwiftwaterGazette mailing list