On the other side of the ideological spectrum, a Communist Soviet Union, which is now Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union; welcomed Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh from the Communist nation of North Vietnam. In the Soviet Union, Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh continued his education from France about politics. It can easily be seen that an education from France and an education from the Soviet Union (pre what is now Russia), on the subject of politics is two different things, especially due to the difference between the two countries’ governments’ ideological preferences to govern their respective jurisdictions. France is a non-Communist and the Soviet Union was a Communist country. Of course, as a former student in France, it
…show more content…
Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh led North Vietnam as a Communist for reasons that are not known except speculations ranging from the farfetched idea of retaliation of the western anti-Communist nations who ignored Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh when he was attempting to get allies for Vietnam in the nation’s quest to gain independence from France to the idea that Communism will lead to a higher and a more sustainable nationalism which will in return motivate the citizens of Vietnam to do what they can to secure the independence of Vietnam from the French Empire which had colonized them for decades. The latter is highly likely to have been the case than the former scenario given Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh’s nationalist views. The latter idea of using harsh techniques like Communism to sustain patriotism and nationalism to hold off withdrawal until conditions are right to do so could have been something the United States could have used minus Communism as nationalism is high enough here in the states. Withdrawal were too soon, as far as the United States is concerned as it was discussed in Political Science 421. Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh used the overly controlling and undemocratic nature of Communism to achieve his goal of making Vietnam an independent nation …show more content…
Barbara Tuchman once asked why doesn’t “the light of the waves behind us allow us to infer the nature of the waves ahead” (1984, 333). I will argue, that it is indeed the illusion of American Exceptionalism that has blinded us to the realities of foreign involvement. The failure to learn from previous mistakes dates back to the Peloponnesian War. Athens, after all, displayed the same hubris as our decision makers. One need only to read the Melian Dialogue to understand. Yet, not only did decision makers not understand the lessons of Vietnam, they ignored it completely with their decision to invade Iraq. One great lesson emerges from history, large powers cannot occupy small nations. The people will come to resent them, the only way to stay is to commit to living there permanently or commit genocide. Nixon (and the Madman Theory) came close to the latter course of action in Vietnam. It is impossible to overestimate the hubris of policy makers in large nations with imperial pretensions. Always there is the possibility of miscalculation which leads to a catastrophic event. Note the Athenian decision to invade Sicily and compare the Athenian attitude to those who still believe we should unilaterally attempt to reshape the Middle
Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh led North Vietnam as a Communist for reasons that are not known except speculations ranging from the farfetched idea of retaliation of the western anti-Communist nations who ignored Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh when he was attempting to get allies for Vietnam in the nation’s quest to gain independence from France to the idea that Communism will lead to a higher and a more sustainable nationalism which will in return motivate the citizens of Vietnam to do what they can to secure the independence of Vietnam from the French Empire which had colonized them for decades. The latter is highly likely to have been the case than the former scenario given Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh’s nationalist views. The latter idea of using harsh techniques like Communism to sustain patriotism and nationalism to hold off withdrawal until conditions are right to do so could have been something the United States could have used minus Communism as nationalism is high enough here in the states. Withdrawal were too soon, as far as the United States is concerned as it was discussed in Political Science 421. Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh used the overly controlling and undemocratic nature of Communism to achieve his goal of making Vietnam an independent nation …show more content…
Barbara Tuchman once asked why doesn’t “the light of the waves behind us allow us to infer the nature of the waves ahead” (1984, 333). I will argue, that it is indeed the illusion of American Exceptionalism that has blinded us to the realities of foreign involvement. The failure to learn from previous mistakes dates back to the Peloponnesian War. Athens, after all, displayed the same hubris as our decision makers. One need only to read the Melian Dialogue to understand. Yet, not only did decision makers not understand the lessons of Vietnam, they ignored it completely with their decision to invade Iraq. One great lesson emerges from history, large powers cannot occupy small nations. The people will come to resent them, the only way to stay is to commit to living there permanently or commit genocide. Nixon (and the Madman Theory) came close to the latter course of action in Vietnam. It is impossible to overestimate the hubris of policy makers in large nations with imperial pretensions. Always there is the possibility of miscalculation which leads to a catastrophic event. Note the Athenian decision to invade Sicily and compare the Athenian attitude to those who still believe we should unilaterally attempt to reshape the Middle