Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

rarehistoricalphotos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 624 posts

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#311

Post by nsonha »

contriban wrote: post #293
skzv wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even every photo you take with a smartphone these days is altered by a machine learned model, put through some filter, and tuned in some way, even if it's subtle.

I think that there’s a general understanding that cameras don’t match 100% what the eye sees. That’s different from a white golden gate.

people see a white golden gate and they immediately know that's not a realistic representation. They don't look at photos heavily touched or space photos with that expectation.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#312

Post by azernik »

nine_k wrote: post #168
ska wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impressive how deep some of these psychological things run nearly 50 years on. It was such a blow to self-image that, let alone all the related domestic political fallout, people still have a hard time accepting what happened. The sheer amount of ink and celluloid spent trying to come to terms with this is awesome, and a little depressing.

How many wars did the US win (as in "achieved the political goals") since WWII? Korean war: half won, half lost. Vietnam war: lost. Grenada invasion: sort of won. Gulf war 1991: I'd say won, despite Saddam staying in power. Gulf war II: I'd say lost, despite Saddam deposition. Afghanistan: lost, despite the killing of bin Laden. Syria: can't tell yet. It's a pretty depressing tally. With that, I'd say that the US was…

Gulf War 1991 is definitely a victory - deposing Saddam was not the goal of the US or its allies.

Similarly, Gulf War II is absolutely a loss, even though it "accomplished more" than 1991, because its strategic goals included dictating the post-war political arrangements in the country.

Victory and defeat are always relative to the parties' strategic goals.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#313

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

michelpp wrote: post #217

"From 1964 to 1972, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world made a maximum military effort, with everything short of atomic bombs, to defeat a nationalist revolutionary movement in a tiny, peasant country—and failed. When the United States fought in Vietnam, it was organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the human beings won." A Peoples History of the United States -…

Zinn's writings about the Vietnam war have been questioned and debunked for a long time now.

> made a maximum military effort

USA did NOT make a maximum military effort in Vietnam.

If USA ever made a "maximum military effort" then the war would have been over in 3 months. That was the whole problem. They never did.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#314

Post by dundarious »

badmadrad wrote: post #296
dundarious wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Ho Chi Minh was agitating for French socialists to join Lenin's 3rd International in the 1910s. I don't think he was a Soviet "agent" in any way, and had his own beliefs, aligning with Bolsheviks, certainly. However, you can definitely argue Vietnam was a client state of USSR.

Ho Chi Minh was trained at Lenin's "Comintern" with the expressive goal of training foreign assets to spread Soviet communist interests. These assets would be funded and supplied by the soviets to agitate revolution in their countries. This essentially is an agent.

OK, I see what you mean by agent now. I had assumed you meant "receiving and following orders", but receiving training (including ideological) seems more in line with your meaning.

I do think almost every leader in South and Central America in the latter 20th Century could be called a "CIA agent" by that definition though. Not something I'd say.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#315

Post by vkou »

nine_k wrote: post #168
ska wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impressive how deep some of these psychological things run nearly 50 years on. It was such a blow to self-image that, let alone all the related domestic political fallout, people still have a hard time accepting what happened. The sheer amount of ink and celluloid spent trying to come to terms with this is awesome, and a little depressing.

How many wars did the US win (as in "achieved the political goals") since WWII? Korean war: half won, half lost. Vietnam war: lost. Grenada invasion: sort of won. Gulf war 1991: I'd say won, despite Saddam staying in power. Gulf war II: I'd say lost, despite Saddam deposition. Afghanistan: lost, despite the killing of bin Laden. Syria: can't tell yet. It's a pretty depressing tally. With that, I'd say that the US was…

The US won the Korean war, according to its objectives at the start of the war (Retain the status quo).

It did not win it according to the objectives set by MacArthur (Drive the commies into the sea). He was, incidentally, relieved of command, thanks to his escalation of the conflict to include China.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#316

Post by vegetablepotpie »

michelpp wrote: post #217

"From 1964 to 1972, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world made a maximum military effort, with everything short of atomic bombs, to defeat a nationalist revolutionary movement in a tiny, peasant country—and failed. When the United States fought in Vietnam, it was organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the human beings won." A Peoples History of the United States -…

> maximum military effort

There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII.

Why then did the US not invade North Vietnam? The last major conflict the US took part in was the Korean War. When the US pushed far enough above the 38th parallel, 700k Chinese troops entered the country and put the war into a stalemate.

The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war.

The bind the US was in was that it couldn’t commit to winning, but it couldn’t lose either. The US tried to outlast an enemy, which was defending its own home turf, which was an awful strategic mistake and lead to millions dead and the trauma associated with the war. Eventually the US government came to its senses and left the situation.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#317

Post by testtest124 »

bavent wrote: post #247
lightgreen wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Take the hint dude, a lot of people think you're wrong, a lot. The orange website is quite left-leaning, and there's nothing racist in my comments. Your opinion is understandable, but it doesn't mean I'm "wrong". And no, I'm not going to bend to groupthink. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is a greatest achievement of western civilization, and I'm going to use it despite of increasing number of attempts…

I wouldn't characterize HN as left-leaning. Maybe liberal with a dash of libertarian techbro thrown in. Also to quote you: "I would hope CEO to protect someone saying “be safe from rioters and looters in BLM marches”, but that won’t happen. It’s easy to protect someone who is supported by the majority. " Is pretty borderline racist. Maybe not overtly so, but the fact that you equate protesting getting killed with loo…

Stupid HN denied me commenting "You're posting too fast". But it let you know that only when you submit the comment. So I'll post the comment from the fresh account.

> the fact that you equate protesting getting killed with looting and rioting rubs

Sorry, I could not understand that phrase. Who is getting killed, and what I equate to what?

> Oh and then denying racist policies are, in fact, racist just because they don't meet the dictionary definition of it.

It's really hard to talk to people which like to redefine words. Calling everything and everyone racists and literal nazis just because they don't like it.

I'll stick to the dictionary.

> And left-leaning activists shutting it down? Jesus dude. Read the constitution. You clearly have no idea what freedom of speech (in America) is.

Freedom of speech is far broader term than US constitution even in the US.

For example, UK has freedom in speech, but it is not in the constitution.

On the other hand, many authoritarian countries have more more freedom of speech in the constitution than the US. But they don't really have free speech.

"Cancelling" people for speech reduces that free speech even if it does not violate constitution.

I must say, you have no idea what freedom is speech is.

> I mean, Florida (a state run by a pretty right-wing governor) just passed a law essentially denying tech companies freedom of speech. The projection from the right is absolutely ridiculous at this point.

Denying companies right to deplatform people might be a limitation of business freedom or whatever, but calling it attack on freedom of speech, this is a hot take.

Yeah, we definitely have very different understanding of freedom of speech.

Just in case, this is a quote from wikipedia:

Freedom of speech: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

Censorship: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. ... Censorship can be conducted by governments, *private institutions*, and other controlling bodies.

Emphasis mine.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#318

Post by anigbrowl »

knz_ wrote: post #204
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe their soceity would have been more successful if it wasn't bombed to hell and back by the Americans then made a soft client state of the USSR and then boycotted by the West. If left to develop its communist government by itself, it could be like China today - a superpower that's going to overtake the USA by important measures. Lets stop pretending that years of war against a superpower didn't come at a cost for…

> If left to develop its communist government by itself, it could be like China today - a superpower that's going to overtake the USA by important measures. Ho Chi Mihm was a puppet of china. There was no 'developing on their own'. > Lets stop pretending that years of war against a superpower didn't come at a cost for them and the US should have left them alone. Yeah, letting Russia and China subjugate the world woul…

Ho Chi Mihm was a puppet of china. There was no 'developing on their own'.

Vietnam is communist but they're not very friendly with China, nor have they been since about 1975; vietnam is certainly not a satellite of China. Starting in 1979 they fought a low-intensity border war with China that went on for over a decade, a fact you seem to be unaware of.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#319

Post by michelpp »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #316
michelpp wrote: post #217

"From 1964 to 1972, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world made a maximum military effort, with everything short of atomic bombs, to defeat a nationalist revolutionary movement in a tiny, peasant country—and failed. When the United States fought in Vietnam, it was organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the human beings won." A Peoples History of the United States -…

> maximum military effort There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. Why then did the US not invade North Vietnam? The last major conflict the US took part in was t…

> There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII.

That didn't happen. That's a militaristic fantasy. What Zinn is describing actually happened. This isn't a debate.

> The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war.

Mutually Assured Destruction isn't "winning". Luckily that didn't happen either. We lost.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#320

Post by karaterobot »

blackoil wrote: post #285
stjohnswarts wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never tell someone to not do things like this. If it increases the audience all the better. It's the way people learn things. When you declare things as taboo it only hurts liberty.

There is a valid concern that people may learn/infer wrong things. Liberty isn't end all catch phrase.

People may just as easily infer the wrong things from black and white still photography. There's no defense against people's ability to misinterpret things.
Post reply on HN