Miscellaneous desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 7

Why did Americans in the 1960s fear the spread of communism in Vietnam?

NAC: Discussion getting off original topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why did Americans in the 1960s fear the spread of communism in Vietnam? Would communism in Vietnam affect economic life in the United States? 84.13.154.250 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of communism in Cambodia, ally of North Vietnam

Communism, as practiced in the real world, is a totalitarian government, and it was not in the best interests of the relatively-free world to see it spread. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Domino theory. .Widneymanor (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it did happen, but only to a very limited extent. Laos, Cambodia, and Burma are largely outside the Western sphere of influence, partially as a result. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of Pol Pot? The Khmer Rouge? The Cambodian genocide? The communists killed about 1/4 of the entire population of Cambodia, half by execution. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communism isn't just preternaturally murderous; it's also astonishingly incompetent, as you can see from the top two items here. Communist Russia and communist China (largely under Stalin and Mao, respectively) were each responsible for deaths an order of magnitude greater than Hitler's Holocaust. Whilst many of these deaths were due to the determined elimination of political opponents, many more were due to the fundamental managerial incompetence created and fostered by the communist form of government. RomanSpa (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I was young, I challenged a history professor to sum up what is bad about Communism in one sentence. He came back the next day and said, "Communism is based on the believe that humans are not selfish." 209.149.114.86 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good". T S Eliot, Choruses from The Rock. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Frank Zappa put it, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the answers here are kind of politically charged or retrospective, i.e. referencing events that happened after the 1960s. It depends what you mean by Americans, as many Americans did not support intervention in Vietnam and the war became immensely unpopular. If you mean America's political leaders, there were a variety of reasons. The domino effect was one. Presidents in the past were criticized for allowing communism to spread, i.e. Truman "losing" China. Additionally, by the 1960s, the US had already invested countless dollars into Vietnam to support the Diem regime and maintain a divided Vietnam. If communism spread throughout the country, the entire American government would look incompetent. So there were plenty of political reasons to fear the spread of communism.

I doubt the average American (whoever that is) was particularly fearful of the spread of communism into Vietnam. Perhaps they feared a spread of communism in Europe or in the US, but in Vietnam it was likely only a modest concern. Would communism in Vietnam affect American economic life? No, not at all. Scarlettail (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective? So having seen what happened in Germany, people being shot fleeing the Berlin Wall, and having seen tanks roll into Hungary, and having been to war with the hermit kingdom of North Korea, and seen 60 Million die during the Cultural Revolution, the West should have expected sweetness and light and regional stability from a communist Vietnam, not massacres and purges and 200-400,000 Vietnamese boat people drowned, starved, or eaten by sharks fleeing the country? The issue is political only in so far as Marxist-Leninism masquerades as a political system. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest this thread should be closed or deleted as obvious trolling, given IP 84's original title "Communistphobia". He's got his answer. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling! Aw shucks. And I had lined up such a beautiful reply to his questions. Never mind, someone else is bound to ask it again...--Aspro (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of bridges there are in London, yes, it is bound to happen again. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very sensible question and doesn't look like trolling at all. "Communistphobia" is actually a pretty accurate description of the times really. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's either trolling or woeful ignorance of history. Hard to tell which is worse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as doctors and nurses depend for their livelihoods on the existence of sickness, and lawyers and police depend on the existence of injustice, teachers and ref desk functionaries depend on the existence of ignorance. It's our job to show our clients the way to the light, not condemn them for not already being there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was a request for debate, so it should have been deleted immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you were debating it, before you suddenly got all rule-quoty and should-have-beeny. I have a punishment lined up for you, and since you love having it both ways, my team of assistants will be happy to oblige. Since it is a punishment, you must promise not to enjoy it too much. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we here at the reference desks are torn between the desire to chat idly and the desire to prevent trolling. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Widneymanor & Scarlettail gave pertinent and full answers, so I am following Medeis suggestion to close the thread. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

μηδείς, I'd recommend reading the question more carefully before you answer. It clearly says "the 1960s," and as I'm sure you know, Pol Pot, the Vietnamese boat people, etc. were not of that decade. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen what they had seen in the past, Western statesmen feared what would happen in the future, and they were right. Are we seriously to consider the question only in the light of what was known on February 7th, 1965, but not before or after? Humans are considered rational animals in part because they can make predictions about the future based on what they've learned in the past. While we are at it, where is the man who stood before the tank at Tienanmen Square? Oops, wrong decade, didn't happen, down the memory hole. (Don't mention the memory hole in Cuba, you can get hard labor for possessing or discussing the works of Orwell.) μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those were consequences, at least in part, of the fall of Vietnam to Communism, so the domino theorists of the 50s and 60s were in a "told ya so" situation. The Berlin situation, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and especially Cuba were all in the 60s, and were enough to convince us already that Communism was our mortal enemy and should be contained if possible. The post-Vietnam situation was merely further evidence of the pattern. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was George Orwell's book 1984 that made our hair stand up on end as far as communism was concerned. He wrote it in 1948. His publisher didn't think much of his proposed title and in the end he just turned the last two figures of the year around. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these accounts actually provide a specific explanation for the fact that America in particular was apparently obsessed with the 'Red Menace' to a greater extent than other western democracies during that decade. I suspect that a proper understanding of that would require analysis of internal political struggles in the U.S., and of the way that external threats, real or imagined, were used as an ideological justification for the silencing of dissent. The '60s were of course the era of the civil rights movement, and focusing on the outside world was a convenient way to ignore issues at home. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bread and circuses was throughout almost all of human history, is now, and will continue to be well into the future, a well-proven, highly effective, highly successful method for distracting the masses and silencing dissent and demands for greater socio-economic equality and demands for racial equality and full civil rights etc. War is, among many other things, also a form of bread and circuses-type distraction. Countries such as ancient Greece and Rome (and many other large groups of people preceding them by thousands of years), the U.S., Israel, Arab countries, and many other nation-states in the ancient past, recent past, present and future of humanity were, and are, permanent-war states to distract their populations from the massive poverty, economic inequality and enormous levels of wealth concentration in the hands of a relatively small kleptocractic-oligarchic-plutocratic elite, while also creating many thousands of well-paying jobs in war-related industries (and related industries such as surveillance etc). Other uses of war always included, and continue to include, e.g. looting and opening new markets for your nation's corporations, i.e., almost all major wars are essentially groups poor or near-poor people killing other poor or near-poor people, with the wealthy kleptocrats [including e.g. senior military officers] on all sides smiling all the way to the bank. See also these relatively recent articles: Honor the Vietnamese, Not Those Who Killed Them, and A Dictionary of American Free Enterprise (the first entry in the dictionary is 'arms sales'), and What's the Difference Between Fascism, Communism and Crony-Capitalism? Nothing. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many Germans were shot trying to get from West Berlin to East Berlin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of lethal force to control borders isn't unique to 'communist' countries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal entry is one thing. In totalitarian states, you can't leave. If an American wanted to run off to Mexico, we wouldn't care. Mexico might, though. So just to clarify: How many instances were there of West Berliners being killed by West Berlin guards for attempting to "escape" into East Berlin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that there is any moral distinction between using lethal force to prevent people coming in as opposed to going out? I can't think of any legitimate reason why one should necessarily be any worse than the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A country has the right to decide who can enter and who can't. That's called "protecting he borders". Shooting folks who are trying to enter illegally is a bit extreme, but they know the risks. But if you can't leave, then you're a prisoner of that country - the entire country becomes a de facto prison - as were and are the Communist countries. That is a huge, fundamental difference between the typical western nation and totalitarian nations. You're free to leave the USA anytime you want to. Nobody's going to hold you back. Try to leave East Berlin for the west, and the East Berlin guards would gun you down. If someone from West Berlin tried to cross over into East Berlin, he might also get shot, but it wouldn't like have been the West Berlin guards doing the shooting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're shot dead entering or leaving a country that's the end as far as you're concerned. If you live in a place like North Korea you're life is just restricted. There's a big difference. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A country has the right to decide who can enter and who can't." True - a right recognised under international law. As is the right of countries to decide who can exit and who can't. A right that the United States for example chooses to exercise - see e.g the Passport Denial Program [1] for one form this takes. That isn't the issue however - the question I asked is whether there is any moral distinction between using lethal force to enforce border controls on people entering or leaving. Incidentally, as far as East Germany is concerned, there is at least room for debate for the suggestion that it was the western powers refusal to take up Stalin's offer of the reunification and neutralization of Germany in 1952 up which led to the later (from 1961) restrictions on movement - after perhaps as many as 3.5 million people had left the eastern zone without such restrictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One reason they can't leave is because if they were allowed to leave, there would be no nation left. If international law really thinks it's just fine to imprison their entire citizenry, then such law is not worth the paper it's written on. In contrast, everyone wants to come to America, and we can't absorb them all. But how many Mexicans have actually been shot by border guards while trying to enter America? As opposed to having died in a truck in the Arizona desert after being scammed by their Mexican countrymen and then abandoned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"how many Mexicans have actually been shot by border guards while trying to enter America?" According to Rodolfo F. Acuña (Professor Emeritus of Chicano Studies at California State University [2]) "Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported 117 cases of human rights abuses by US officials against migrants from 1988 to 1990, including fourteen deaths. During the 1980s, Border Patrol agents shot dozens of people, killing eleven and permanently disabling ten". [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Mexicans. Consider the case of Esequiel Hernandez, US Citizen shot by Marines near the Mexican border http://www.well.com/~jax/ http://www.dpft.org/hernandez/ GangofOne (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, by that logic, it's a human rights abuse to try and prevent an illegal entry, but it's totally OK to shoot someone who's trying to leave? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Logic'? Nope. Not even close. Nobody has other than you has even come close to suggesting that shooting people crossing borders illegally is 'OK'. The only point I have made is that the DDR wasn't alone in doing so. You seem intent on seeing this whole discussion as 'good U.S.' vs 'bad DDR', without even considering the fact that you are criticising the DDR for actions not entirely dissimilar from those the U.S. has also engaged in on occasion. I could of course extend the list considerably - but that isn't really the point. My original response in this thread was to point out that the U.S. had some pretty severe internal problems at the time (including a systematically disenfranchised minority population), and that external threats (real or imagined) are both a distraction from internal problems and a convenient excuse to crack down on dissent. This self-evidently worked the other way too (as far as the DDR elite were concerned, 'western imperialism' was the threat), and the bombastic rhetoric on both sides clearly made the situation worse. Rhetoric which you seem intent on regurgitating even now, long after the event. An honest appraisal of the events in post-war central Europe needs more than rhetoric, and a better understanding of the way the domestic politics of the participants (including the two 'superpowers') often interacted with foreign policy in complex ways. Simply labelling the Warsaw Pact countries (or North Vietnam for that matter) as 'totalitarian' as if that was an explanation for everything may make for a good soundbite, but it tells us almost nothing concrete about unfolding events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to escape prison, you're liable to get gunned down. That was standard procedure in the Communist countries, whose entire nations were (and some still are) prisons to their citizenry. No amount of pro-Communist rationalizing can change that cold, hard fact. The mere idea of living under such conditions was enough to scare us plenty, back then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"pro-Communist rationalizing"? Bugs, you are clearly incapable of even discussing the subject of this thread rationally, and take anything that questions your over-simplified viewpoint as support for its ideological 'opposite' - which is an entirely irrational attitude. Not that your regurgitated cold-war tub-thumping belongs here anyway. Find a forum somewhere, and leave replying to reference desk questions to people who can provide referenced encyclopaedic responses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Restricted" is quite an understatement. Characterizing the citizens as "imprisoned" seems more accurate, except for the ruling class, of course (although even they can be summarily executed). StuRat (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of miss-characterisations, including North Korea amongst countries which even claim to have a communist ideology is anachronistic to say the least - see Juche. The quasi-religious hereditary personality cult (a de-facto monarchy) has about as much connection to anything envisioned by Karl Marx as the Westboro Baptist Church has to Jesus of Nazareth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The practical application, of corrupting Marx's ideas for political purposes, is not Marx's fault. I think he would have been shocked to the core by how his words had been abused to crush people's freedoms and lives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All so-called "communist" nations have completely co-opted and corrupted the ideals of communism. Marx envisioned the workers of the developed world rising up, to demand equality, not backward nations like Tsarist Russia and 1940's China. The socialist Nordic nations may be closer to what Marx had in mind. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always in discussion of the many problems of communism, the no true Scotsman fallacy appears. RomanSpa (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. 100,000,000 dead in the name of communism in the last century, but it wasn't communism's fault. Makes you wonder why no one ever says Nazism and the Children's Crusade were great ideas, just poorly implemented. μηδείς (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the fault of the totalitarian governments, pretending to be communist, with leaders who were homicidal, incompetent, or both. And note that genocidal regimes in no way require communism (or pretending to be communist). The Holocaust, Rwandan genocide and Armenian genocide are some counter-examples. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a good point that I intend to steal it for use in future arguments! RomanSpa (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RS, you know I could use a barnstar. I like the spinny one. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This half hour of the Kim Jong Un Variety Show has been brought to you by the North Korean Ministry of Tourism, Funny Walks, and Swine Chow, Featuring Soylent Pink: "That's not my Uncle, it's Soylent Pink!" μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Hartmann

Hi,

There is no article for John Hartmann, the CEO of True Value and former FBI agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.99.223 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why didn't you create it?. --Jayron 32 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can IP's create articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are allowed to create a username (takes all of 30 seconds), and then can create articles instantly. Autoconfirmation is not necessary to create articles. --Jayron 32 11:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can create drafts and [WP:AFC|submit them for review]], they cannot directly create new pages in mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFC for the instructions, and a draft could be made at Draft:John Hartmann. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your help, 119.94.99.223 and all, this can change. The most unlikely things happen - witness the shock result of yesterday's general election. For the manifesto see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what would help more, is if people who want to make policy changes actually spend the 20 or so minutes reading the history before making inaccurate claims in their proposals. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did spend time reading the history. If you can find a discussion where editors were screaming for level 1 pending changes to be introduced please point to it. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub that comment. I'm reading the discussion at the Village Pump. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help for UK veteran re military burial

Sir / Madam

          I am trying to get in touch with the sectary of sate UK.

I am 24728017 Sgt Thomas retied Veteran. I was in colour service for twenty five years. Three year's in the TA and colour service started in 1988 to 2010. The day I left the Army I was on the street's for six weeks. I didn't get my LSGC due to the Regiment going on tour. But when I got out I was told that I can't have my LSGC one because I was not in uniform any more. Two there was no one to present it to me. I have found this a hard pill to swallow.

OK I'm asking permission in writing to be placed in a military grave yard. This is due to the fact I have no family to place me in the ground. The other reason is because if I could be placed in a military yard I would be back with my real family. I have made plans for the rest i.e coffin, songs for church and every thing that needs to be done. All I need now is a letter to place in my will.

Can I say sorry if iv come to the right places. This is special to me and I fill in portent to me.

I Hope to hear from you.

Mr Richard Thomas <personal contact information redacted>

Please contact me if you require any more detail's Thank you for taking the time to read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomo8ball (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Jayron 32 14:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LSGC is the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, "a medal awarded by the British Government to members of the British Armed Forces who have completed 15 years of reckonable service." -- ToE 15:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans UK (part of the MoD) may be of assistance. Consider contacting the Veteran UK helpline, as described in section 1 of this page.

Veteran UK helpline:

Email: veterans-uk@mod.uk
Freephone (UK only): 0808 1914 2 18
Telephone (overseas): +44 1253 866 043

-- ToE 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal British Legion's helpline is on 0808 802 8080 - they'll know how to help you navigate the requisite MoD paperwork. Or you can try the regimental association for your former regiment. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Thomas,

If you need further help beyond the advice given above, you may also find it useful to contact your MP, who will be able to contact the Secretary of State for Defence directly. Good luck! RomanSpa (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although nobody in the UK has an MP today, as Parliament has been dissolved. We should all have one again by tomorrow morning and this page; Contacting your MP will hopefully be updated soon afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Wikipedia

Reading the thread about Palmistry, made me wonder if there is an equivalent of Wikipedia for the New Age community? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of possible ideas. --Jayron 32 15:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy, do you get good vibrations from any of those ? Are they properly aligned with you aura ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of them I'm afraid. Think I'll stick with the complementary health community sites. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]