Discussion:
If North Vietnam failed to win the Vietnam War, would it look similar to North Korea right now?
(too old to reply)
WolfBear
2017-09-16 04:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If North Vietnam, for whatever reason, would have failed to win the Vietnam War and conquer South Vietnam, would North Vietnam look similar to North Korea right now?

Specifically, I mean having North Vietnam be poorer than its southern counterpart and having a nuclear weapons program, a missile program, and a bombastic (filled with aggressive rhetoric, hostility towards the U.S., et cetera) foreign policy.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Insane Ranter
2017-09-17 00:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
If North Vietnam, for whatever reason, would have failed to win the Vietnam War and conquer South Vietnam, would North Vietnam look similar to North Korea right now?
Specifically, I mean having North Vietnam be poorer than its southern counterpart and having a nuclear weapons program, a missile program, and a bombastic (filled with aggressive rhetoric, hostility towards the U.S., et cetera) foreign policy.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Well Nguyen isn't in the top five of last names in the US if the South wins. I think you'll get a united Vietnam. The US isn't stopping at a North/South division in this one. There isn't any reason too if the US/South win.

Its more than likely the same as now. There will be a few coups back and forth unless the US throws money at it in development and westernizing the whole country.
WolfBear
2017-09-17 02:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by WolfBear
If North Vietnam, for whatever reason, would have failed to win the Vietnam War and conquer South Vietnam, would North Vietnam look similar to North Korea right now?
Specifically, I mean having North Vietnam be poorer than its southern counterpart and having a nuclear weapons program, a missile program, and a bombastic (filled with aggressive rhetoric, hostility towards the U.S., et cetera) foreign policy.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Well Nguyen isn't in the top five of last names in the US if the South wins. I think you'll get a united Vietnam. The US isn't stopping at a North/South division in this one. There isn't any reason too if the US/South win.
Its more than likely the same as now. There will be a few coups back and forth unless the US throws money at it in development and westernizing the whole country.
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in our TL, though; plus, such a move might very well trigger Chinese military intervention (as in Korea in 1950).
Pete Barrett
2017-09-17 15:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in our TL, though; plus,
such a move might very well trigger Chinese military intervention (as in
Korea in 1950).
I'd suggest not, because the North Vietnamese regime was aligned with the
USSR, not with China. That wouldn't matter much in the 50s, but as the
relationship between the USSR and China grew acrimonious in the 60s, it
becomes important, because:

(a) Russia is unable to support North Vietnam militarily in the way China
would be able to, or was able to support North Korea.
(b) China would not bother offering military support to a Russian ally,
except at the price of Ho detaching himself from Russia and aligning
himself with China.
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back, such that any
Chinese intervention might well be the death-knell for Vietnamese
communism in a revival of Vietnamese nationalism.
(d) Nixon was busy sucking up to China as a way to tip the balance
against the USSR (and co-incidentally, the USSR-backed North Vietnamese
regime).
--
Pete BARRETT
WolfBear
2017-09-17 20:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in our TL, though; plus,
such a move might very well trigger Chinese military intervention (as in
Korea in 1950).
I'd suggest not, because the North Vietnamese regime was aligned with the
USSR, not with China. That wouldn't matter much in the 50s, but as the
relationship between the USSR and China grew acrimonious in the 60s, it
(a) Russia is unable to support North Vietnam militarily in the way China
would be able to, or was able to support North Korea.
(b) China would not bother offering military support to a Russian ally,
except at the price of Ho detaching himself from Russia and aligning
himself with China.
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back, such that any
Chinese intervention might well be the death-knell for Vietnamese
communism in a revival of Vietnamese nationalism.
(d) Nixon was busy sucking up to China as a way to tip the balance
against the USSR (and co-incidentally, the USSR-backed North Vietnamese
regime).
--
Pete BARRETT
Couldn't the North Vietnamese regime eventually turn to China in this TL, though? After all, if the Soviet Union still eventually collapses in this TL, turning to China seems like a relatively obvious choice (if one is careful to avoid Chinese domination, that is).

Also, did North Korea get any help from either Russia or China in regards to its nuclear weapons and missile programs? If not, what makes you think that North Vietnam wouldn't be able to likewise have its own nuclear weapons and missile program?
Pete Barrett
2017-09-18 18:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in our TL, though;
plus, such a move might very well trigger Chinese military
intervention (as in Korea in 1950).
I'd suggest not, because the North Vietnamese regime was aligned with
the USSR, not with China. That wouldn't matter much in the 50s, but as
the relationship between the USSR and China grew acrimonious in the
(a) Russia is unable to support North Vietnam militarily in the way
China would be able to, or was able to support North Korea.
(b) China would not bother offering military support to a Russian ally,
except at the price of Ho detaching himself from Russia and aligning
himself with China.
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back, such that any
Chinese intervention might well be the death-knell for Vietnamese
communism in a revival of Vietnamese nationalism.
(d) Nixon was busy sucking up to China as a way to tip the balance
against the USSR (and co-incidentally, the USSR-backed North Vietnamese
regime).
--
Pete BARRETT
Couldn't the North Vietnamese regime eventually turn to China in this
TL, though? After all, if the Soviet Union still eventually collapses in
this TL, turning to China seems like a relatively obvious choice (if one
is careful to avoid Chinese domination, that is).
If you're talking about the period from about 1990 to the present, then
the fact is that they haven't, and for a lot of that time, Vietnam was
isolated diplomatically. Not perhaps as isolated as North Korea, or as a
North Vietnam which had lost the war might have been, but isolated enough.

Vietnam-China relations are not good, now that China is throwing its
weight about in the South China Sea. I suppose stranger things have
happened, but I wouldn't think it's likely.
Post by WolfBear
Also, did North Korea get any help from either Russia or China in
regards to its nuclear weapons and missile programs? If not, what makes
you think that North Vietnam wouldn't be able to likewise have its own
nuclear weapons and missile program?
Did North Vietnam have a nuclear weapons program? I never heard of it
having one, and they're not nuclear armed now (or if they are, nobody's
making a fuss about it).
--
Pete BARRETT
The Horny Goat
2017-09-19 02:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:30:30 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett
Post by Pete Barrett
Did North Vietnam have a nuclear weapons program? I never heard of it
having one, and they're not nuclear armed now (or if they are, nobody's
making a fuss about it).
There are all sorts of countries that could easily acquire nuclear
weapons within a year of the politicians reaching a consensus that
they needed them. Japan, Germany and Canada are obvious examples and
regular readers here could come up with others equally plausible. (For
instance I would bet it would take the Swedes more than a year but I
wouldn't bet against them!)

Of the 4 countries names I would be astonished if any of them provoked
1/10 of the furore our man in Pyongyang does!

(Worst poster of 2017 - a picture of Trump and Kim with the captions
"Little Boy" and "Fat Man" - which in the context of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki have a totally obvious and dead serious message)
WolfBear
2017-09-19 03:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in our TL, though;
plus, such a move might very well trigger Chinese military
intervention (as in Korea in 1950).
I'd suggest not, because the North Vietnamese regime was aligned with
the USSR, not with China. That wouldn't matter much in the 50s, but as
the relationship between the USSR and China grew acrimonious in the
(a) Russia is unable to support North Vietnam militarily in the way
China would be able to, or was able to support North Korea.
(b) China would not bother offering military support to a Russian ally,
except at the price of Ho detaching himself from Russia and aligning
himself with China.
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back, such that any
Chinese intervention might well be the death-knell for Vietnamese
communism in a revival of Vietnamese nationalism.
(d) Nixon was busy sucking up to China as a way to tip the balance
against the USSR (and co-incidentally, the USSR-backed North Vietnamese
regime).
--
Pete BARRETT
Couldn't the North Vietnamese regime eventually turn to China in this
TL, though? After all, if the Soviet Union still eventually collapses in
this TL, turning to China seems like a relatively obvious choice (if one
is careful to avoid Chinese domination, that is).
If you're talking about the period from about 1990 to the present, then
the fact is that they haven't, and for a lot of that time, Vietnam was
isolated diplomatically. Not perhaps as isolated as North Korea, or as a
North Vietnam which had lost the war might have been, but isolated enough.
Vietnam-China relations are not good, now that China is throwing its
weight about in the South China Sea. I suppose stranger things have
happened, but I wouldn't think it's likely.
OK.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
Also, did North Korea get any help from either Russia or China in
regards to its nuclear weapons and missile programs? If not, what makes
you think that North Vietnam wouldn't be able to likewise have its own
nuclear weapons and missile program?
Did North Vietnam have a nuclear weapons program? I never heard of it
having one, and they're not nuclear armed now (or if they are, nobody's
making a fuss about it).
No, North Vietnam didn't have a nuclear weapons program; however, neither did North Korea until the 1990s.

Basically, I have the impression that the Korean War created a siege mentality in North Korea which became more severe after the end of the Cold War; thus, to compensate for the loss of its Soviet patron as well as the increasing power of South Korea, North Korea decided to build nuclear weapons.
Post by Pete Barrett
--
Pete BARRETT
Pete Barrett
2017-09-19 16:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
No, North Vietnam didn't have a nuclear weapons program; however,
neither did North Korea until the 1990s.
Basically, I have the impression that the Korean War created a siege
mentality in North Korea which became more severe after the end of the
Cold War; thus, to compensate for the loss of its Soviet patron as well
as the increasing power of South Korea, North Korea decided to build
nuclear weapons.
So the scenario would be an end to the Vietnam War with a settlement and
acceptance of partition (at least for practical purposes) on the basis of
the _status quo_, some time in the late 60s. Which would put North
Vietnam in a similar position to North Korea, and South Vietnam in a
similar position to South Korea. The question is, then, how much of North
Korea's behaviour is down to their situation, and how much to their
leadership?

I think I would argue that it's almost all down to their leadership, and
in particular to the need for the leader to prove himself when he takes
over. The point being that the way power is handed on is in some ways
more similar to the early Ottomans (before the succession got mixed up in
palace intrigues) than either a hereditary monarchy (where the next
monarch is frequently quite incompetent, or follows a quite different
policy to their predecessor) or the collective leadership of China or
North Vietnam (which ensures that the leader has enough support when they
take over, and doesn't need to play those sorts of games). The early
Ottoman system ensured that a Sultan had similar ideas to his predecessor
_and_ would be aggressive.

If I'm more or less right there, then North Vietnam would behave quite
differently, even to the extent of taking advantage of the 'Asian Tiger'
prosperity of the 90s and 2000s. You might get peaceful co-existence, or
even a peaceful reunification as China starts to be a threat to both.

(You might get co-operation earlier. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia
was removed by action by Vietnam OTL, and would be equally obnoxious to
both Vietnams in the ATL.)
--
Pete BARRETT
The Horny Goat
2017-09-19 19:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:39:53 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett
Post by Pete Barrett
If I'm more or less right there, then North Vietnam would behave quite
differently, even to the extent of taking advantage of the 'Asian Tiger'
prosperity of the 90s and 2000s. You might get peaceful co-existence, or
even a peaceful reunification as China starts to be a threat to both.
Well there IS some Vietnamese manufacture of items sold in the West
today - I have two HP P1102W printers (it's a low end wireless
monochrome laser) in my store both manufactured there.

If you had told me back in my student days (early 70s) that I would
own multiple laser printers, that they'd be priced under $100 and that
they would be made in Vietnam I'd be amazed. I'd be equally amazed if
I was told that in the early 80s around the time I was retiring my
Apple II in favor of an MS-DOS box with my first hard drive ...
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-20 06:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Well there IS some Vietnamese manufacture of items sold in the West
today - I have two HP P1102W printers (it's a low end wireless
monochrome laser) in my store both manufactured there.
If you had told me back in my student days (early 70s) that I would
own multiple laser printers, that they'd be priced under $100 and that
they would be made in Vietnam I'd be amazed.
Supposedly, a global opinion survey showed that the
country with the highest positive feeling about
capitalism is Vietnam.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
pyotr filipivich
2017-09-27 05:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
So the scenario would be an end to the Vietnam War with a settlement and
acceptance of partition (at least for practical purposes) on the basis of
the _status quo_, some time in the late 60s. Which would put North
Vietnam in a similar position to North Korea,
On difference is that North Korea has two land borders - one with
China and a little bit of Russia, the other being with South Korea.
North Vietnam had China to the North, the RVN to the South, with
Laos to the west and then into Burma, Thailand and Cambodia. So that
bit of geography might have changed things a bit.
Post by Pete Barrett
and South Vietnam in a
similar position to South Korea. The question is, then, how much of North
Korea's behaviour is down to their situation, and how much to their
leadership?
I think I would argue that it's almost all down to their leadership, and
in particular to the need for the leader to prove himself when he takes
over. The point being that the way power is handed on is in some ways
more similar to the early Ottomans (before the succession got mixed up in
palace intrigues) than either a hereditary monarchy (where the next
monarch is frequently quite incompetent, or follows a quite different
policy to their predecessor) or the collective leadership of China or
North Vietnam (which ensures that the leader has enough support when they
take over, and doesn't need to play those sorts of games). The early
Ottoman system ensured that a Sultan had similar ideas to his predecessor
_and_ would be aggressive.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-18 01:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in
our TL, though; plus, such a move might very well
trigger Chinese military intervention (as in Korea
in 1950).
I'd suggest not, because the North Vietnamese regime
was aligned with the USSR, not with China.
Not really. AFAIK, North Vietnam never took sides in the
Sino-Soviet split. And Soviet forces were never deployed
in Vietnam till after the war (Soviet naval forces used
the base at Cam Ranh Bay).
Post by Pete Barrett
That wouldn't matter much in the 50s, but as the
relationship between the USSR and China grew
acrimonious in the 60s, it becomes important,
(a) Russia is unable to support North Vietnam
militarily in the way China would be able to, or was
able to support North Korea.
Russia however was the chief provider to North Vietnam
of all military goods. China may have provided a little,
but there were also reports of China skimming some of
the materiel which was shipped overland through China.
Post by Pete Barrett
(b) China would not bother offering military support
to a Russian ally, except at the price of Ho
detaching himself from Russia and aligning himself
with China.
China may have no great love for North Vietnam, but
would not want the Communist regime destroyed by US/RVN.
Post by Pete Barrett
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back,
such that any Chinese intervention might well be the
death-knell for Vietnamese communism in a revival of
Vietnamese nationalism.
If North Vietnam is being overrun by US/RVN, excessive
Chinese influence is by far the lesser evil.
Post by Pete Barrett
(d) Nixon was busy sucking up to China as a way to
tip the balance against the USSR (and
co-incidentally, the USSR-backed North Vietnamese
regime).
Nixon's deal with China was not until 1972, by which time
US involvement in the war was being terminated. US/RVN
invasion of North Vietnam would have come in 1965-1968 or
not at all.

A more important consideration for China was (IMHO) the
internal political disruption of the Cultural Revolution.
I don't know that it affected the PLA all that much, but
if I had been Mao or Lin Piao, I would be reluctant to
embark on any major military adventures at that moment.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Pete Barrett
2017-09-18 18:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in our TL, though;
plus, such a move might very well trigger Chinese military
intervention (as in Korea in 1950).
I'd suggest not, because the North Vietnamese regime was aligned with
the USSR, not with China.
Not really. AFAIK, North Vietnam never took sides in the Sino-Soviet
split. And Soviet forces were never deployed in Vietnam till after the
war (Soviet naval forces used the base at Cam Ranh Bay).
Post by Pete Barrett
That wouldn't matter much in the 50s, but as the relationship between
the USSR and China grew acrimonious in the 60s, it becomes important,
(a) Russia is unable to support North Vietnam militarily in the way
China would be able to, or was able to support North Korea.
Russia however was the chief provider to North Vietnam of all military
goods. China may have provided a little, but there were also reports of
China skimming some of the materiel which was shipped overland through
China.
Post by Pete Barrett
(b) China would not bother offering military support to a Russian ally,
except at the price of Ho detaching himself from Russia and aligning
himself with China.
China may have no great love for North Vietnam, but would not want the
Communist regime destroyed by US/RVN.
They wouldn't want the US on their border, but I feel that might be the
extent of their interests. In the likely timeframe, they were far less
powerful than they are now.
Post by Pete Barrett
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back,
such that any Chinese intervention might well be the death-knell for
Vietnamese communism in a revival of Vietnamese nationalism.
If North Vietnam is being overrun by US/RVN, excessive Chinese influence
is by far the lesser evil.
To Ho and his allies, but possibly not to the Vietnamese peasantry.
Post by Pete Barrett
(d) Nixon was busy sucking up to China as a way to tip the balance
against the USSR (and co-incidentally, the USSR-backed North Vietnamese
regime).
Nixon's deal with China was not until 1972, by which time US involvement
in the war was being terminated. US/RVN invasion of North Vietnam would
have come in 1965-1968 or not at all.
A more important consideration for China was (IMHO) the internal
political disruption of the Cultural Revolution.
I don't know that it affected the PLA all that much, but if I had been
Mao or Lin Piao, I would be reluctant to embark on any major military
adventures at that moment.
Fair point. China was otherwise engaged that early. I suppose I was
thinking that Nixon and Kissinger seem a more likely pair to invade North
Vietnam than any likely alternative. (Though perhaps in a 'Kennedy lives
scenario...)
--
Pete BARRETT
WolfBear
2017-09-19 00:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
The U.S. didn't bother invading North Vietnam in
our TL, though; plus, such a move might very well
trigger Chinese military intervention (as in Korea
in 1950).
I'd suggest not, because the North Vietnamese regime
was aligned with the USSR, not with China.
Not really. AFAIK, North Vietnam never took sides in the
Sino-Soviet split. And Soviet forces were never deployed
in Vietnam till after the war (Soviet naval forces used
the base at Cam Ranh Bay).
Post by Pete Barrett
That wouldn't matter much in the 50s, but as the
relationship between the USSR and China grew
acrimonious in the 60s, it becomes important,
(a) Russia is unable to support North Vietnam
militarily in the way China would be able to, or was
able to support North Korea.
Russia however was the chief provider to North Vietnam
of all military goods. China may have provided a little,
but there were also reports of China skimming some of
the materiel which was shipped overland through China.
Post by Pete Barrett
(b) China would not bother offering military support
to a Russian ally, except at the price of Ho
detaching himself from Russia and aligning himself
with China.
China may have no great love for North Vietnam, but
would not want the Communist regime destroyed by US/RVN.
Post by Pete Barrett
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back,
such that any Chinese intervention might well be the
death-knell for Vietnamese communism in a revival of
Vietnamese nationalism.
If North Vietnam is being overrun by US/RVN, excessive
Chinese influence is by far the lesser evil.
Post by Pete Barrett
(d) Nixon was busy sucking up to China as a way to
tip the balance against the USSR (and
co-incidentally, the USSR-backed North Vietnamese
regime).
Nixon's deal with China was not until 1972, by which time
US involvement in the war was being terminated. US/RVN
invasion of North Vietnam would have come in 1965-1968 or
not at all.
A more important consideration for China was (IMHO) the
internal political disruption of the Cultural Revolution.
I don't know that it affected the PLA all that much, but
if I had been Mao or Lin Piao, I would be reluctant to
embark on any major military adventures at that moment.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Based on the information here, it does look like China was willing to militarily intervene in the Vietnam War if push came to shove:

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/china-contributed-substantially-to-vietnam-war-victory-claims-scholar

"However, the new evidence from China suggests that Mao was seriously prepared to intervene. There was a secret agreement between Hanoi and Beijing that if the Americans launched a ground invasion of North Vietnam (at that time, the United States had restricted itself to a bombing campaign), China would send ground troops into North Vietnam and would not allow the United States to defeat Hanoi. If the Americans bombed North Vietnam, China would match the American military action by taking measures to protect North Vietnamese cities and to rebuild roads and bridges. They would also send anti-aircraft artillery units and army engineers to support North Vietnamese troops and help them deal with the air bombing pressure."

However, I would still like my original question here to be answered--specifically, if both North Vietnam and South Vietnam survive as separate states to the present-day (just like the two Koreas), would North Vietnam have looked similar to our TL's North Korea today? Specifically, I am talking about a bombastic foreign policy, a nuclear weapons program, missile programs, and possibly WMDs as well.
pyotr filipivich
2017-09-27 05:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
(c) Conflicts between China and Vietnam go way back, such that any
Chinese intervention might well be the death-knell for Vietnamese
communism in a revival of Vietnamese nationalism.
As I observed about events following the downfall of Saigon and
the RVN: having defeated and expelled the Colonial Imperialists the
entire region was now under control of good Fraternal Socialist
Brothers. Who could now focus on what was really important -
resumption of tribal conflicts. The Vietnamese were able to bring
improved culture to the Khmer, while the Chinese failed in their bid
to extend their influence.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Pete Barrett
2017-09-27 16:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Vietnamese were able to bring improved culture to the
Khmer
They were able to expel the Khmer Rouge government, which you'd think
would have earned a big cheer from everyone, but apparently not - the UN
continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government,
China denounced the new government as a puppet of Vietnam, and western
leaders, including Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (to be fair to
Reagan, he was almost gaga by then, so can't really be held responsible;
but Thatcher wasn't), recognised a coalition including the Khmer Rouge.

Such is the interplay of politics and morality.
--
Pete BARRETT
pyotr filipivich
2017-09-30 03:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
The Vietnamese were able to bring improved culture to the
Khmer
They were able to expel the Khmer Rouge government, which you'd think
would have earned a big cheer from everyone, but apparently not - the UN
continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government,
China denounced the new government as a puppet of Vietnam, and western
leaders, including Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (to be fair to
Reagan, he was almost gaga by then, so can't really be held responsible;
but Thatcher wasn't), recognised a coalition including the Khmer Rouge.
Such is the interplay of politics and morality.
Some people have this "fetish" if you will, for Legitimacy of
Government" based solely on the forms. Hence, overthrowing a legally
elected but monstrous Government is a bad thing.
But sometimes, ignoring the entire issues makes it "go away" - or
at least off the six-o-clock news.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Loading...