How different wold the US be today without Vietnam War?

[Armstead]

Since the current political climate seems to be "Back to the Future" on many levels, a question about the Viet Nam War comes to mind.

The 1960's were, on a number of levels a "Golden Age" for the US. Our economy was probably the strongest it has ever been, the position of a majority of Americans was solid and efforts were made to improve the conditions of the poor. Big Business was not as overwhelming as it is today.

Politically, liberalism was a solid political force.

Okay it was far from perfect. There were the divisions over civil rights, riots and other social problems. But in overall terms the foundations of society were sound.

But Viet Nam screwed it up big time. It undermined LBJ and . It helped to screw up the economy and federal budget.

It also poisoned society. It tore the Democratic Party in two. It created larger schisms between right and left that politically polarized the nation.

It scarred the Baby Boomer generation. We were spoiled brats anyway, and we might have done some rebelling anyway. But Viet Nam took that aliention to a whole different level.

The reverberations of all of that were felt throughout the 70's, and can still be felt today. Right now, it almost seems like we're encountered a delayed tidal wave from all that Viet Nam unleashed.

How would it be diferent today if VietNam hadn't happened? Wold the 70's have been such a mess? Would politics be so polarized today?

[MrSoundAndVision]

1. Well I'd hope that without a war....

The US would have seen the pros of socialism and avoided the pitfalls into Stalinism. We could have really taken a different perspective on the Cold War, and changed the world for the better, instead of being so thick-headed-opposed to everything socialist. We could have fixed things through peace and understanding.

[JailBush]

2. Hmmmmm...

I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that Vietnam screwed us up. It was a sick, immoral war which obviously screwed up Vietnam.

But if we had not invaded Vietnam, we still would have continued other, quieter wars in Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere. I think Vietnam forced a lot of dirt into the open and exposed America for what it is - a rogue state.

Did Vietnam really slit us into a polarized society, or were we already a polarized society simply waiting for a wedge? And if we were unified before Vietnam, then what were we unified around - business as usual?

I think Vietnam brought out some of the best in us. The protests were often irreverent and messy, but isn't that what "democracy looks like"?

Finally, keep in mind that a lot of the polarization is driven by propaganda, perhaps more than war itself.

[Armstead]

4. There were divisions

As I said it wasn't utopia. On some levels it was a traumatic, violent time, even without Vietnam.

But there was an underlying backdrop that did seem much more solid and more hopeful than anything we've had since. There was some kind of bedrock that most everyone took for granted. A level of economic security that existed for average people -- even those who rejected it....And rather than being forgotten, there were concerted efforts to raise the standards of the poor.

I guess my own feeling is that we were at least moving in the right direction. But that was halted and we got thrown off course by Vietnam. And that opened up a Pandora's Box of demons that are still flying around.

[JailBush]

6. You could be right.

"I guess my own feeling is that we were at least moving in the right direction. But that was halted and we got thrown off course by Vietnam. And that opened up a Pandora's Box of demons that are still flying around."

We definitely got knocked off course. My perception has always been that we were the victims of success - liberal activists eventually triumphed, giving us civil rights, the environmental movement and an end to the war in Vietnam. Then the victors retreated into materialism and apathy, even as the establishment began working even harder to take over America, lock, stock and barrel.

Whether they were empowered by Vietnam or by post-Vietnam events, they've certainly succeeded under George Bush.

[david_vincent]

3. I can't even imagine

how arrogant this country would be if it weren't for our defeat in Vietnam. Seems like these days we're back to the "hubris is GREAT!" zeitgeist.

[Armstead]

5. It was a lesson in humility

But it didn't seem to take hold.

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. I think there would be a lot more 30 somethings who would

know their daddies.

[RichM]

8. There are a lot of elements to this, of course, making the conjecture

almost too impossibly open-ended to handle.

But to take a swing at it: Vietnam was a singular defeat for the ruling elite of this country. The main reason for this was unfortunately not the enormity of the American crimes, which are still almost entirely unappreciated & unrecognized in US society. Rather, it was the draft, & the body bags. The 57k US dead counted, in the usual US-o-centric way, for many times the 3-4 million Vietnamese dead.

Three major things happened almost contemporaneously: Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, and the end of the 25-yr post-war economic boom. All of these things were very serious body blows for the established order. And they determined the intensity of the backlash, which started after Nixon left office, & have culminated in the ascension of GW Bush.

So my first guess is: had Vietnam not happened, the countering wave of reaction would not have been so intense. The Mellon Scaifes of the world were seriously frightened by the late '60's; it increased their resolve to see that no such rebellion would ever rise again.

Secondly, the military build-up for Vietnam contributed to the inflation of the 70's. So this too, might have been less, had Vietnam not happened.

Though Vietnam was in reality a sort of showcase exposing the deeply criminal nature of many sections of US society, the lessons were mostly lost on the US public. Everyone acknowledges in some general way that it was "a mess," and a "mistake," but few realize how horrible it really was. The chemical bombing of SE Asia was an atrocity, probably worse than anything in the 20th century except WWII.

In the mid 1970's certain aspects of the crimes of the US govt came to light, with the Pentagon Papers, the exposure of COINTELPRO, the Church Commission, & of course Watergate. However, no lasting lesson was learned, as Bush is doing all the same things again, and worse. Thus one thing that CANNOT be said, is that the US public really learned anything from the experience. (Unfortunately, it CAN be said that the rightwing learned a lot from their mistakes of the Vietnam era -- and haven't repeated them. That's a significant difference.)

On balance: had Vietnam not happened, my take is that some bad things would not have happened in quite such damaging ways. But the difference would not be great. The US would not be the US, if it was not deeply engaged in the unlimited growth of militarism, an unending ruthless search for increased control of resources abroad, & the efficient use of propaganda to hide the real motivations of government from the population domestically.

[Armstead]

9. But what I wonder.....

Much of what you say is correct.

But I have been wondering if the opening up that was occurring might have continued on a less polarized course had not that upheaval happened.

In other words, without the wedge of Vietnam to widen and antagonize the divide between "progressives" from the mainstream, would we perhaps have dealt with many of those evils you mentioned with more public support, and thus more effectively? Or was the schism and backlash inevitable anyway?

Maybe that's a naive way to see it. But it just seems to me that a lot of opportunities were lost that we're just now beginning to appreciate.

It's all admittedly just speculation. But it also seems relevant because we're in a smaller version of a similar situation now.

[RichM]

11. Oh, you mean, might those who comprised the counterculture -

the students, the hippies, the assorted antiwar groups - might they have been able to gradually persuade & influence the parent culture? As opposed to directly entering into overt confrontation?

Assuming you mean something like that - well, one can only guess. There are 2 sides to it. On the one hand, the sense of confrontation with the established order was a spur to the development of the counterculture. Had it not revelled & delighted so in its rebellion, it would not have achieved the consciousness & "movement" status that it achieved. Thus it would have been less capable of persuading and influencing, since it would not have had a developed philosophy itself.

IOW, the anti-war component of the counter culture, which was one of its best features, could not have developed without a nice juicy criminal war to prompt its development.

OTOH, just as in a spat between 2 people, you can hit a point where Tom is justifiably angry at Dick, but then goes too far in his anger, so that his words & actions become unproductive. The counterculture's sassy taunting of the parent culture made rightwing elements very, very angry. It's hard to argue that this did anyone any good. (It helped get Nixon elected.)

You speak of the "opportunities" that were lost. I see what you are referring to, & I agree that opportunities were lost. There was a world-wide grassroots self-generated movement afoot for a while (something that calls to mind the antiwar marches of last February). The movement was opposed to war, materialism, & the Established Order. It was linked internationally by the spirit & music of the times. OTOH, it was childish and sort of half-baked, philosophically. It was rooted too much in spoiled brats' immediate wants and not enough in a serious critique of the nature of society.

You say we're in a smaller version of a similar situation now. Again, I think I see what you mean. (The antiwar marches, the development of things like MoveOn.org, etc). I think, unfortunately, that we're in much weaker shape this time around. // I'd also toss this historical comparison in: the '70s were in my mind like a "smaller version" of the McCarthy era. In both periods, you had a terrific reaction of the Established Order against an upstart populist type of rebellion. Both were essentially purges. In my mind, the McCarthy purge was what definitively killed the US political left. After that happened, the future course of things was pretty much charted.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. First of all

at the time the Vietnam War got under way, the U.S. was respected, even admired throughout the world. I've talked to people ten years older than I who were pioneering backpackers and went to places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Afghanistan, and, of course, Europe, who not only never encountered any anti-Americanism but found that being an American made them some sort of celebrity. JFK was popular everywhere, and in the early 1960s, the U.S. was remembered mostly as the country that had helped save the world from fascism. Sure, we already had some blots on our postwar history, but all in all, our reputation was positive.

The Vietnam War was the first event that ruined our reputation. It was followed by the Iran fiasco and the inexcusable interventions in Central America and Grenada. Now the White House is occuped by a bunch of megalomaniacs who want to run the world for the benefit of themselves and their friends.

You'd think that the Vietnam War would have taught us a lesson, but of course, the rogues in the White House never fought in it, so what do they know? (I didn't fight in it either, of course, but at least I read, unlike certain pretzeldunces I could mention.)

[Festivito]

12. The world and US would be somewhat better off, had Vietnam not been a war.

During WWII women learned they could work. After Vietnam women had to work in order for our country to pay for the war and its eventual loss. The women's movement may have progressed more slowly, but, more sanely. One bread-winner households might still have been the norm.

Space would have been our major battleground replacement. We'd have a research station on Mars. There would be talk of tourism stays on the moon.

Russia and China would still be our biggest enemies. Their enmity with each other would keep them in check. One totalitarian nation calling the other totalitarian nation totalitarians.

Russian communism would fall after failing in Afghanistan. We would have rebuilt Afghanistan and it would in turn, turn away Usama bin Laden who would be stuck in Saudi Arabia where the Royals would keep his attention away from the rest of the world.

A Republican president would institute health care for the country. It would still be a mess since the major thrust would be to keep Mexicans from recieving free health care. The cost of keeping non-nationals and hypocondriacs from obtaining health care will cost twice as much as having given them all health care in the first place, but no one will ever figure that out.

AIDS would have been checked immediately, but, would have spread worldwide due to the Republican health care system's attempt to constantly save a few bucks on not treating foreigners.

The world and US would be somewhat better off, had Vietnam not been a war.

[leetrisck]

13. Maybe I would still have a lot of my family

and friends

[SoCalDem]

14. The vile nature of the republicans would have still oozed out.

Viet Nam was not as much a divider as was the Civil Rights movement..The convergence of those two issues, is what set into motion, the policies we have today..

The group of angry white men who had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into an integrated world, are still with us, but they are just meaner and richer now..

Viet Nam and Civil rights were both issues that young people felt in their bones..

The upheaval on the 60's was about a younger generation rebelling against the phony sociewty they saw around them.. This was a society that said that the water in two fountains was different, even though it came through the same pipe...that the people at the front of the bus were "better" than the ones at the back, even though they arrived at the same place at the same time, and they paid the same fare...

Viet Nam had not been "cooking" for very long, before the young people saw that if you were middle class or poor, and you happened to be male 18-23, you had a long nasty trip ahead of you...but if your Daddy was a big shot or your family had money, you did not have to go..

The 60's were about inequality..plain and simple...

Without Viet Nam, we would have still had "issues"..

Civil Rights & Viet Nam...Both were violent, and both are still with us today....

[Armstead]

16. Two directions

I agree with much of what you said. But I wonder if the rebellions and counterreactions would have been less severe if it had not been split into two tracks.

Like LBJ did a lot for civil rights and the war on poverty, but he was totally undermined by the war. Without that, might he have been able to focus on pushing those policies forward and bringing along his white southern counterparts along better?

[SoCalDem]

18. Perhaps that was almost by design..

The war was pre-destined by the time Johnson became president..

Once he started making civil rights his legacy-issue,the war may have actually been a way to placate the "others"..

My guess is that , had he stopped the war, the antagonism wiuld have been even more hateful towards the civil rights movement..

These were two runaway trains, and onoce they got started, I don;t think he could have stopped either one..


In theory, the lack of Viet Nam should have meant a bigger and better liberal public policy arena, but I doubt that it would have worked that way.. Johnson was hated by many in his own party for tackling those issues, and of course he was attacked by "the other side" too..

Look at the great shape our economy was in around 2000, it only took a little time, and a few bad choices to turn that around.. Prosperity does not "sell".. :(

The government has the money.. the craven individuals/organizations are determined to siphon off as much as they can for thie own pet projects.. To them..war is just such a project:(

[sandnsea]

15. What about the assassinations?

I look back at the 60's and see more than Vietnam. Scarred is right, to the point that I can't even jump from 1963 to 1973 and try to imagine it didn't happen. The 70's, to me, was just classic the war is over partying and a massive influx of boomers into the job market all at the same time. The economy probably would have had the same problems regardless. If conservatism was a reaction against the civil rights movement and 'socialist' programs, I think that all would have happened exactly the same as well. I've heard it said the civil rights movement came out of a sense of deserving equality from serving in WWII, so that would be the same. Hell, I don't know, way too much to think about.

What the fuck happened to our kids though? Voting Republican? Where the hell did WE go wrong, that's what I can't figure out.

[happyslug]

17. My father had a saying about this

The dog would have caught the Rabbit if he had not stop to take a shit.

We are what we are because of Vietnam. Could it have been Avoided? I do NOT think so, the Right wing where still singing "Who lost China?" and implying the Democrats did. Castro only stayed in power because of the threat of Soviet Nukes (and the US was doing everything to keep any and all "anti-communists" in power around the world. This reflected the US's foreign policy was officially to "contain" the spread of Communism (while the right wing wanted to force them into "retreat" i.e. drive the Communists out of some at that time communist country).

All of this lead the US into Vietnam. It was an area of operation where we thought the Soviet Union would not nuke the US to keep (unlike Eastern Europe and Cuba) and was about to fall to the Communist (which no Democratic President could permit given the heat Truman took "Losing China" just 20 years before).

No, the US was doomed by its own domestic politics to fight in Vietnam (or some country like Vietnam, i.e. a country about to fall to the Communists do to its leadership's corruption and incompetence, a fall that any president of the US could NOT permit for it would lead to hi party losing the next election)

Like the Dog in my father's saying, the US preferred to take a shit (i.e. go into Vietnam) than catch the Rabbit of peaceful prosperity.

[denverbill]

19. Vietnam made America averse to war.

I was in 2nd grade when I first read about Vietnam, probably 7 years old in 1965. My Weekly Reader told me all about how the brave Americans were fighting off those horrible invading Communists and helping the heroic South Vietnamese defenders. That was my view of the Vietnam War right on up til about 1973. I thought the protesters were long-haired crazies and cowards.

Watergate changed everything for me I think. I suddenly realized that Presidents weren't the perfect people I always read about in my history books. We started to hear about the lies of the war. The My Lai Massacre. The secret bombing of Cambodia. Suddenly, instead of being a great war to help keep the South Vietnamese free, I began to see something else: an outside invader being thrown out by the indigenous people.

Vietnam made me distrustful of my own government. Vietnam makes me look at Panama, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II with suspicion. Now I judge a war on it's merits, and don't rely on the President to tell the truth.

[whitestar]

20. re:"Vietnam made America averse to war."

Thanks for that statement DB,

Let us not forget the justifications for war:

Religion

Money

Power

The suffering of people, military or not, just does not seem to justify war. From the first to the last we all suffer in the end.

To what ends will it be justified?

whitestar

[MnFats]

21. Well, at least 58,000 of my generation and untold millions...

...of Vietnamese would have had a shot at living a normal, happy prosperous life.

they did not have that opportunity because of Johnson and Nixon's insistence on -- at first, winning -- and then, 'peace with honor.'
I suppose they both went to their graves with a roughly equal amount of blood on their hands.

However, my hatred for Nixon is greater. He cared nothing for civil rights, where Johnson made huge strides. And Nison, with his Rasputin, Kissinger, thought nothing of the Americans who were cannon fodder for his unholy fantasies, and even less of those who were unfortunate enough to be under the bombers.

don' get me started on Vietnam. I didn't have to go -- I won the draft lottery -- and still it's one of the defining episodes of my life.

Nixon slid down a slippery slope toward the gates of hell, and took the whole country down with him.


and then fuckin' Ronald Reagan, while president, had the balls to call U.S. involvementin Vietnam "a noble cause."