Opinion of the NVA/Viet Cong

[Greedo punched first]

Opinion of the NVA/Viet Cong. Remember that they committed the Hue Massacre, the largest scale war crime committed by ground forces.

[PSOL]

Dude, this obsession is serially unhealthy. We are at bronz levels rn

[GeneralMacArthur]

How long until we get an "Opinion of the Khmer Rouge" thread?

Even the hardcore tankies have disowned Kampuchea.  Although when it was actually happening, they totally supported Pol Pot (an effort led by Noam Chomsky).

[Greedo punched first]

How long until we get an "Opinion of the Khmer Rouge" thread?

Even the hardcore tankies have disowned Kampuchea.  Although when it was actually happening, they totally supported Pol Pot (an effort led by Noam Chomsky).

The Khmer Rouge is far more obvious. The NVA/Viet Cong war crimes get less attention.

[Alben Barkley]

Jane Fonda voted FF.

[PSOL]

How long until we get an "Opinion of the Khmer Rouge" thread?

Even the hardcore tankies have disowned Kampuchea.  Although when it was actually happening, they totally supported Pol Pot (an effort led by Noam Chomsky).

Now this is also not true aside from cringe Maoists at that time. Chomsky later disavowed his comments as he assumed that it was a propaganda effort by the US State Department; which given that the region was a black hole in testimony until the Viet invasion does have some understanding and nuance to it.

[Greedo punched first]

Yes, Chomsky disavowed his comments. He also reluctantly voted for Biden because it wasn't worth electing Trump again, upsetting the tankies. Why are many details of the Vietnam War so murky?

[Former President tack50]

I didn't know the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie allied with the Viet Cong back in the day, who knew!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I didn't know the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie allied with the Viet Cong back in the day, who knew!

Politics makes strange bedfellows...

[WMS]

How long until we get an "Opinion of the Khmer Rouge" thread?

Even the hardcore tankies have disowned Kampuchea.  Although when it was actually happening, they totally supported Pol Pot (an effort led by Noam Chomsky).

Now this is also not true aside from cringe Maoists at that time. Chomsky later disavowed his comments as he assumed that it was a propaganda effort by the US State Department; which given that the region was a black hole in testimony until the Viet invasion does have some understanding and nuance to it.

Actually, not quite. There was damn little. But I remember reading this many years ago in a public library while searching for coverage at the time: “Diary From Darkness”, Yin Savannary, National Review, December 10, 1976. I had seen The Killing Fields by then, and this earlier account matched up very well with what was reported in the movie. It was underreported to be certain. But apparently some information trickled out after all.

[LBJer]

How long until we get an "Opinion of the Khmer Rouge" thread?

Even the hardcore tankies have disowned Kampuchea.  Although when it was actually happening, they totally supported Pol Pot (an effort led by Noam Chomsky).

The Khmer Rouge is far more obvious. The NVA/Viet Cong war crimes get less attention.

I find the question of this thread somewhat confusing--are were talking about the NVA/Viet Cong in absolute terms, or in terms of whether or not they were on the "right side" of the Vietnam War? A nation or group at war can commit war crimes yet still have a good cause and deserve to win.  I'm not saying this was necessarily true regarding the NVA/Viet Cong,  just that it's far more complicated than "they committed war crimes, therefore their cause was bad."  The Allies certainly did morally debatable things in WWII, it doesn't mean they were in the wrong in terms of their cause.

Of course, it's possible for both sides in a war to be pretty bad, or for both to be fundamentally decent, just having a dispute in which there's something to be said for both points of view. 

[Greedo punched first]

How long until we get an "Opinion of the Khmer Rouge" thread?

Even the hardcore tankies have disowned Kampuchea.  Although when it was actually happening, they totally supported Pol Pot (an effort led by Noam Chomsky).

The Khmer Rouge is far more obvious. The NVA/Viet Cong war crimes get less attention.

I find the question of this thread somewhat confusing--are were talking about the NVA/Viet Cong in absolute terms, or in terms of whether or not they were on the "right side" of the Vietnam War? A nation or group at war can commit war crimes yet still have a good cause and deserve to win.  I'm not saying this was necessarily true regarding the NVA/Viet Cong,  just that it's far more complicated than "they committed war crimes, therefore their cause was bad."  The Allies certainly did morally debatable things in WWII, it doesn't mean they were in the wrong in terms of their cause.

Of course, it's possible for both sides in a war to be pretty bad, or for both to be fundamentally decent, just having a dispute in which there's something to be said for both points of view. 

I know the Allies committed war crimes too. But didn't their opponents commit the largest scale massacres committed by ground forces?

[LBJer]

How long until we get an "Opinion of the Khmer Rouge" thread?

Even the hardcore tankies have disowned Kampuchea.  Although when it was actually happening, they totally supported Pol Pot (an effort led by Noam Chomsky).

The Khmer Rouge is far more obvious. The NVA/Viet Cong war crimes get less attention.

I find the question of this thread somewhat confusing--are were talking about the NVA/Viet Cong in absolute terms, or in terms of whether or not they were on the "right side" of the Vietnam War? A nation or group at war can commit war crimes yet still have a good cause and deserve to win.  I'm not saying this was necessarily true regarding the NVA/Viet Cong,  just that it's far more complicated than "they committed war crimes, therefore their cause was bad."  The Allies certainly did morally debatable things in WWII, it doesn't mean they were in the wrong in terms of their cause.

Of course, it's possible for both sides in a war to be pretty bad, or for both to be fundamentally decent, just having a dispute in which there's something to be said for both points of view. 

I know the Allies committed war crimes too. But didn't their opponents commit the largest scale massacres committed by ground forces?

Obviously the Axis were far worse than the Allies regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity.  But this thread began with a reference to a massacre at Hue (something that was acknowledged by someone on the NVA/Viet Cong side in the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary, by the way).  What I was saying was that I thought that that was not necessarily sufficient to vote "HP" here.  If the question was were they HP in the sense of being on the wrong side of the war, then saying they committed war crimes isn't by itself sufficient to say yes--hence my reference to the fact that the Allies in WWII clearly did some wrong or highly questionable things, yet at the same time, the Allied side was clearly not "wrong" for a neutral, objective standpoint. 

It should also be noted that saying "the NVA/VC committed war crimes" doesn't mean that all or even most of the people in these organizations did so. 

[HisGrace]

VC were scumbag terrorists, the NVA was a legitimate army that did some bad things.