Embers of War: Why Were We in Vietnam?

Fredrik Logevall, Author and Professor of International Studies and History at Cornell University, presented "Embers of War: Why Were We in Vietnam?" on Wednesday, February 27. The lecture examined Vietnam in the post-1945 era, and explored the factors that put the US on its collision course with history. The lecture was sponsored by The Schemel Forum.

[@stefanschindler422]

Crucial knowledge, splendidly delivered.

[@mariannguyen9577]

very good book to read and understand more about the Indochina war.

[@logicalspartan]

Wonderful speech and one that all of the people who want to fight the Vietnam war again with more bombs this time.

[@pffear]

I find it funny how none of these lecturers, who say we can't possibly understand Vietnam without looking at the war where they took their independents from the French, fail to look at the Chinese civil war as a major contributor to the wild fires that swept across the whole China/ Indo-Chinese zone..... These civil wars started in the 20's between the communists and anti-communists while the old kingdoms like Siam etc. Were subjugated by the European countries under colonial rule. All sides called a truce to their civil wars to resist the massive threat of the Japanese invasion in the early 30's, joining forces to eject Japan from the continent. But as soon as WW2 ends, all of these truces end and they pick up where they left off.... The seeds of all these conflicts were planted decades sooner than you talk about it starting.

[@logicalspartan]

To add to my previous comment would be for those people to watch.

[@SerpentLord]

Lost opportunity!? How could America turn away from Ho Chi Minh when he was espousing American values? Just think if we'd recognized him and then nurtured a relationship with Vietnam? We'd have been able to maybe realize a business relationship with them instead of China. Cheap labor and Nation-building together. Doesn't this make any sense? The course we took certainly doesn't.

[@logicalspartan]

Afghanistan was fought perfectly to depose the Taliban. The moment we went on to nation building we lost. We should have left them to their own means and return only if the new government proved to be an issue. Then we simply depose them and leave, rinse and repeat until the government is not a threat.

[@enlightenedwarrior7119]

Did the French threaten to go to the other side if the US did not back them?

[@JRobbySh]

Thinking that Ho was open to co-operation with the United States in 1946 is like thinking that Stalin , Tito, and Mao were not true believers in Marxist-Leninism, and were willing to allow political opposition in their countries and to abide by the principles enunciated by the Allies in their opposition to The Axis Powers. Henry Wallace was open to such possibilities and would as president have followed such a course. We are fortunate that FDR agreed to replace Wallace with Truman in 1944. A President Wallace would , it seems clear, never challenged the Soviets in Europe as Truman did.Would not have regarded the strong Communist Party in France as threat to democracy and would have let his anti-colonialist prejudices determine his actions everywhere. As it was, we went much too far trying to mollify Maoism in China, That was , however, because of Maos military power and our desire to avoid Civil war.