My dad was one these ARVN soldiers. In the final days of the war he and his drill sergeant stole a helicopter as Saigon fell and flew west, expecting to keep fighting. They wound up in a refugee camp in Thailand and eventually made it to the US. He wouldn't see his family again until Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam 20 years later.
In those final moments, soldiers who knew how to fly took whatever aircraft they could get their hands on, (Chinooks, Hueys, Cessnas, etc.) and flew aimlessly, hoping to run into friendly forces along the way before their fuel ran out.
People get so tangled up in the geopolitics of these types of conflicts, and forget that every person the war touched has a personal story.
I’ve known quite a few Vietnamese who lived through the conflict and their stories, no matter how lucky they were, the stories are incredible and hard to comprehend, no matter which side and whether they suffered horribly or made it out real relatively unscathed.
Whether fleeing at a moments notice from your country of birth, never knowing where you are going or whether you’ll ever return. Or even the stories of people seeing the end and planning in advance what they will need and how to make sure family is ok.
Then you think about the scale of it and that tens of millions of humans went through it and it’s impossible to comprehend the scale of it.
What is really remarkable is the resiliency of humans. You speak to people who went through it and realize many have the perspective of “you did what you had to do” and “its a part of my life that is over now”, but try and imagine how hard it must be to live in a country of relative peace and see all these people around you who have never, and will never, go through anything similar, and try and have it all make sense.
It’s also really fascinating talking to people who stayed in South Vietnam after. The entire system is reset. The police, the government, even where you get your food is swept away and rebuilt. I’ve noticed many people thrive on rumors as the government isn’t known for transparency. Days after the war order is restored and you hear rumors of what will come. Neighbors gossip, you do your best to prepare and wait.
> It’s also really fascinating talking to people who stayed in South Vietnam after. The entire system is reset.
It took me a while to appreciate the significance of renaming Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City. I've lived in HCMC (although I'm not Vietnamese) and the renaming is actually controversial to this day, although most Vietnamese know better than to speak up about it.
Basically, imagine if Russia conquered Ukraine and then renamed Kyiv to "Vladimir Putin City".
> It took me a while to appreciate the significance of renaming Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City.
The interesting thing is that locals continue to use "Saigon" in everyday conversation. It seems like the government decided that wasn't a fight worth having.
Someone told me that several government agencies still use "Saigon" as well on logos and such.
The interesting thing is that "Saigon" came from the French occupation. The Vietnamese ruling under the French renamed it "Sai Gon", and the French used "Saigon". Before the French arrived, it was called Gai Dinh.
The name Constantinopolis came after him. It was often just referred as polis. The name Istanbul is derived from "eis tan polis" (to the city) used as a common phrase during Byzantian times. Turks kept using this old names as Konstantiniyye (Constantin's city in Arabic) Istanbul, both only referring to the walled part of the city till mid-20th century.
> Basically, imagine if Russia conquered Ukraine and then renamed Kyiv to "Vladimir Putin City".
This is really a poor analogy. Kyiv is the birthplace of ancient Russia (Kyiv Rus) and for both Ukrainians and Russians it is like Jerusalem for Jews and Arabs. It is easier to imagine renaming Moscow into Zelensky City than Kyiv into Putin.
That's a strange historical revisionism in Ukraine. Traditionally, Rus history is considered to begin with Ladoga, then Rurik moved to Novgorod, and only later his successors moved to Kiev.
Saying that one true Rus is Kiev and not Novgorod or Moskow is rather a modern Ukrainian national myth. All and neither were true Rus.
Except Ukraine is a sovereign nation - much like Russia (which in today’s form does not hold any reasonable claim to Kyiv) - and renaming either nations capital city to satisfy some man’s thirst for legacy would be equally vulgar. The analogy holds pretty well, from where I’m standing.
It’s a good analogy because to rename Ukraine’s capital city after its conqueror would be a gigantic “fuck you” to the people of Ukraine, rubbing salt into the fresh wounds of their conquest, which is exactly what North Vietnam did to the South.
You’re just doing the typical HN thing of responding to an analogy by pointing out differences that are irrelevant to the point of the analogy.
>> capital city after its conqueror would be a gigantic “fuck you” to the people
As how most every port city in North America is named by whatever western explorer first put it on a map? From Botany Bay to Vancouver, Los Angeles and even Virginia USA, placenames are pulled from the culture of the conquerors. Only when one gets into the hinterlands do local names appear.
Well, you touch on a pattern: costal cities are named by European explorers on ships. Wikipedia states that the first use of "Chicago" was by the explorer La Salle, who was on foot. Explorers on foot are much more likely to use names derived from local language, Canada/Kanata being probably the most famous example. But areas mapped and explored by explorers on ships (ports/mountains and such) are generally given European names.
presumably it has something to do with the fact that when sailing an oceangoing vessel you aren't likely to be interacting with others for much of any reason until you pull into port. Which when a lot of these places were named, didnt exist. Shore excursions would have been ones where the large ship is moored off the coast and rowboats will be sent to shore with a dozen or so people for a temporary stay. Almost all of the food and safety would be back on the big ship
And then Muscovites stole Rus name and tried to pretend they’re the leaders of pan(east)slavism. Probably one of the reasons for the outgoing war. Moscow wants to be the real Kiev. The only way is to destroy it.
The photo of a man carrying a baby and a woman by his side in the article is not of Buang Ly. The naval institute even has a video of the actual landing here:
They have one of the SBD Dauntless dive bombers at the museum that sunk a Japanese carrier at Midway. Still has holes in it from AA fire if I recall correctly.
Thanks—I think that's the story I was remembering.
If I'm getting this right, these are two different stories involving different pilots and different aircraft but they happened on the same day! (April 29, 1975)
If you ever have a chance, talk to Vietnamese immigrants that you work with, and hear their stories of escape. Nearly everyone I've spoken to has a book or movie-worthy tale to tell.
Many went through tough times after the war was over and left years later.
That applies equally to most people having been through war and becoming refugees. I know a couple of people who fled from Afghanistan, and that wasn't exactly a cakewalk. Like "my brother was forced to enroll in the talibans and got killed, so they ordered my father to provide another fighter, so he decided to make me escape to Iran instead at age 13, from where I walked / hitchhiked to Sweden in 2 years"
The Sympathizer/The Committed though fictional have many details that match the stories of different people I know, with the taking off from Saigon airfield while under attack from NVA to others escaping on a boat with only the hope of being picked up by friendlies of some stripe and avoiding pirates or others who could only escape in any case with some of their immediate family and had to get the rest reunited years later. Not a few of the ones old enough to remember the details though are getting scarce simply because of age (some of the people I know were too young to remember anything and had to rely on their parents memories).
I worked with a Vietnamese lady for many years. She refused to ever talk about her escape. She would simply only say, "I was very young. It was bad. I don't like to remember it."
The brain has this nice thing of removing traumatizing memories so that it can move on. Asking people about these things is not a good idea. Just let them recount the tales if they want.
I remember seeing women on the sides of the highway in one part of town gathering plants to eat, there's plenty of edible stuff out there, and my parents telling me they were refugees. Must have been in '74/'75 and I was a wee lad. In a Southern state.
My parents were PhDs from Berkley and UCLA who got positions in the south so it was a weird time and place. For everyone.
There's no doubt that racism played a role, but a lot of the bitterness was more related to the fact that a huge influx of people, some of them very desperate, arrived and worked in the shrimping industry for low wages and in terrible conditions. This cut the rest of of the labor market off at the knees.
Suddenly a lot of people who had had the job for years, and had maybe been doing it for generations as a family trade, either lost their job or were unable to carry it out profitably.
the 'luxury' apt building I live in has lots of Ukrainians and Russians (amongst the tech, influencers and onlyfans merchants, the only stateside people that can seemingly afford this location)
the men have really harrowing stories of escaping their respective countries since they weren't allowed to leave, being draftable
the 'luxury' apt building I live in has lots of Ukrainians and Russians… the men have really harrowing stories of escaping their respective countries since they weren't allowed to leave, being draftable
My next-door neighbor is one of them.
We were on nodding terms in the hallway for about six months after he moved in, then one day I saw him at the trash chute wearing a "Fuck Putin" shirt, and I asked him about it. He started to tell me his story, and then suddenly stopped, saying he didn't want to talk about it anymore.
Based on the start of the story, I can understand him not wanting to finish it.
Were they Russian or Ukrainian? My casual understanding is that the draft is much more significant in Ukraine, although it's hard to find details of it and the penalties for dodgers.
I can confirm friends coming in/out of Russia without much change. All IT workers are exempted from mobilization. People after 30 yo are safe from draft. Yonger are supposed to be draftable but I know someone who is 2x yo and went to visit Russia, fly in and out with no issues. The only difference is airplane tickets more expensive now.
Meanwhile men in Ukraine can be mobilized on the street and good luck leaving the country
This isn't entirely true. A friend of mine (who works in IT) got drafted. In 3 days he ended up getting a pregnancy certificate faked, so he and his girlfriend could get legally married quickly (for immigration options elsewhere) - and fled the country.
The draft is unequal, they are concerned about their IT worker shortage. The majority of drafting is happening in impoverished areas of the country, and ethnic minorities. Often people think they'll just be doing a driving job or something, and end up in combat. But nobody is truly safe. Your friend is taking a large gamble by visiting.
mobilization is not the same as mandatory draft. draft it still applies to all including IT workers just like before the war. But you are "not home" to get the povestka you are fine. Also almost everyone seems to have some sort of exemption via employment or whatever. No one snatches people on the streets or when exiting the country like in Ukraine
I don't think I heard of anyone drafted to war but I know many russians knowingly went to war to make money on contract basis (which is also not the same as mandatory draft).
Now if mobilization happens they would be more aggressive but as I say IT workers are officially exempt from it.
As unfair as that is, Russians can still rely on basically volunteers who an average choose to be there, Ukrainians do not. I've heard many horror stories from there. About men who are basically hiding in cellars so that the recruteers won't pull them off the streets.
Fucked situation all around. I want to blame Russians as the only ones responsible for that, I guess. (As in they started this. Not saying Ukraine is crystal clear with many issues they have with the army, but still I can't blame them.)
I'm Pole, so it's more personal for me. Knowing if I was born a bit more to the East, I'd be awaiting my death (and in agony).
as a Russian, 100% Moscow started this, no need to pick words carefully. "Ukraine invited attack by doing something Russia didn't like" is ridiculous.
And as a Pole you of course know that Putin's "there are our people there we want to liberate" is the same logic Russia used to invade Poland before. Twice
sorry, I was unclear - I wanted to refer to the fact that Ukrainian army might be a little heavyhanded on things like draft - for understandable reasons - not to the war itself
that is only and purely on Russia and I cannot argue otherwise in good faith
I expect it's gonna get worse before it gets better. The best approach, IMO, is to flag, downvote, and move on. Don't engage, don't get in arguments.
I don't mean this in general, just on HN which is not intended to be a political space. For some people, reactionary politics has become their entire world and it's important to show them this doesn't get the reaction they desire here.
Great to see a story about the USS Midway. It is currently decommissioned and permanently docked in San Diego as a museum for the public. I've been there - on the very landing strip seen in the photos. Really humbled to have visited such a key part of US history.
What a story! Just wild that so many helicopters were destroyed. But everyone on board the ship must have been so gratified that all five children survived.
Your comment reads a lot like you were assuming that he was a layperson who never flew a plane before. The article looks as of it was deliberately staying ambiguous about that part. But the complete absence of any statement about his previous flight experience or lack thereof suggests that he was a pilot, but they prefer not to talk too much about that part for the sake of a gripping story. (it does say so in the title, even if a reader eager of sensationalism might very well argue "that was the flight that made him a pilot")
Zero experience in carrier operations is super-impressive nonetheless, but it completely pales next to the drama of setting out into nowhere overloaded and with a half-empty fuel tank. The airspeed delta between a Chessna and a carrier steaming into the wind is so low that the landing itself really would not be so that impressive. Impressive bit not crazy impressive.
As the article mentions, the most dangerous aspect of the landing may have been the turbulence and downwash over the fantail. Given that this was a STOL airplane (and also given that the pilot would have had no experience landing on a target moving at almost his stall speed) it might have been safer if the ship just pointed its flight deck into the wind.
I recall from flight school one instructor who liked to demonstrate that the aging Cessna 150 he was often assigned to could be landed in the width of a runway (as performed at an intersection.)
it might have been safer if the ship just pointed its flight deck into the wind
Reading TFA, that's precisely what occurred:
Chambers ordered his chief engineer to transfer the ship’s electric load to the emergency diesel engines and make steam for 25 knots (29 mph)... The captain turned his ship into the wind to prepare for a fixed-wing landing.... Buang lowered the Bird Dog’s flaps and approached in a shallow descent at a speed of 60 knots (69 mph). With the ship providing an estimated 40 knots (46 mph) of headwind to aid the landing, the light plane slowly caught up.
15 knot headwind plus ship's speed gave 40 kt landing wind, aircraft landed at stall speed of 60 kt airspeed, giving 20 kt to kill on landing. That was a risk on a slick deck, and from the accompanying video the landing was fairly far down the deck, but had sufficient braking distance.
I mean just pointing its flight deck into the wind with sufficient speed to hold it there, as opposed to heading into it at 25 knots (which required firing up six boilers, so I assume it was not initially steaming at that speed.)
It was always possible that the airplane could have gone off the bow with insufficient speed to do a go-around, but it might also be the case that the shallow approach was a consequence of trying to land on a target moving away, and that made it difficult to spot-land. My guess is the latter, though of course I can't prove it.
With a 40 kt wind down the deck, one would need the brakes to avoid being blown backwards off it, or into a reverse groundloop which might well lead to the same outcome.
Even just holding position would give some downdraft, from those 15 kt of wind. With 2/3 of airspeed compensated by the ship moving into the wind, and an airplane already quite good at short runway landing, the descent angle relative to the moving runway should easily be steep enough to stay clear of the downdraft.
Yet the pilot apparently made a shallow approach. I suspect that was due to having not landed on a moving target before - setting up the approach for where the ship was, not where it was going to be when he got there.
At first sight, it might seem the situation is just like a high-wind landing on an airfield, but there is a difference: on an airfield, if you line up for, say, a 3-degree approach, but the wind is stronger than you anticipated, you will need more power, it will take longer, and your descent rate will be reduced, but your flightpath will be as planned, with that 3-degree slope. In the case of a ship moving away from you, not only will you need more power than anticipated, but the path you follow will be shallower than planned, as it ends further away than anticipated.
Pilot not only had no experience on carrier landings, but no comms as to how to approach.
There were two practice approaches, so the mobile-landing element may not have been as significant as you're suggesting. That's of course hard to say either way.
An alternative view on the two practice approaches (or go-arounds?) is that he still made a shallow approach over the fantail.
The lack of communications means that the pilot could not be warned of the specific difficulties and dangers of landing on a moving aircraft carrier, over and above the ordinary difficulties of a short-field landing of the sort every pilot is supposed to be proficient in. In that circumstance, my guess is that minimizing the novel dangers would be the way to go, but, as you say, we are all just guessing here.
> Your comment reads a lot like you were assuming that he was a layperson who never flew a plane before.
You're reading something that's just not there then. I clearly left out the details as TFA clearly states he was a pilot (you just need to have read it and not skimmed). What I was referring to was landing on an airstrip on the ground is drastically different than landing on moving landing strip that also has hidden gotchas for trained pilots. Doing that for the first time as a pilot is one thing. Doing that for the first time with your wife and kids onboard is a whole other level. Your comment, however, is a whole other level going the other direction
Reading anything about this war makes me tear up, and I'm not even Vietnamese.
I strongly recommend anyone who travels to Ha Noi to visit Hoa Lo prison - it's an excellent exhibition that shows the horror of both colonialism and war, and i think is made in a genuine good faith effort to promote peace into the future.
This one got me, y'all. I'm sitting here imagining how it would feel to cram everyone you love most in the world into a poorly-provisioned plane, point its nose towards the ocean, and - with their lives measured by fuel in the tank - hope to find safety in time. Then, when against all odds you've found the ship, to trust their safety to the good-will of those below, and to your ability to execute a sketchy landing you've never practiced before.
I'm a relatively new dad, so an increasingly large number of my brain cycles are involuntarily committed to worst-case-scenario planning. Like, my kid choked for something like four seconds, and I tipped him over and banged on his back and he was fine, but I'd already mentally moved into the rest of the checklist: start a timer; call 911; Heimlich, Heimlich, Heimlich; send my wife for peroxide, a razor blade, and a straw; Heimlich, Heimlich. At 3.5 minutes, I'm making the cut. Like I say, the kid was fine, but I was a bit of a wreck for a little while.
There's one of those videos above (go watch 'em) where they're getting off the plane, and someone reaches out and pats the guy's shoulder, and his face is just numb. Like, it worked, and we're safe, and I don't believe it yet, and I'm glad they showed that shoulder pat, because I wanted to reach through the screen, and back through time, and do the same damn thing, tell him: "it worked; they're safe; welcome home."
I’ve been to the Midway twice and it’s the first time I hear the story. Must have overlooked an exposition or something. I also wonder why they didn’t bring the bird dog over to San Diego? I mean they have the F14 from the USS Enterprise who needed to land on the midway still on the flight deck.
Other than that. What an amazing story. I love the part that the captain didn’t care if he would not only loose his job but also get court marshaled for loss of material.
One of the saddest scenes I've witnessed was a march in Paris in 2005 where there were a few hundred south Vietnamese former up marching behind their former flag to a memorial. The thought of everything being lost was quiet strong.
I love Hacker news and I’m finally creating an account. My dad flew these planes in Vietnam and I sent him this article. Here’s some of our conversation:
Me: You know this guy? Or have you heard of him?
Dad: I have not. This is the 1st I ve heard of it
The evacuation of Vietnam was a 100 times worse, horrific, etc. Than Afghanistan
That pilot was very lucky...landing a light fixed wing on an aircraft carrier is impossible
The swells of the sea, etc. Will bat that plane like a bug
Live or die.....hundreds of thousands friendly Vietnamese died when we left them unprotected
Me: frowny face
Dad: It was despicable
Much, much worse than Afghanistan.... the North Vietnamese slaughtered most all those that worked with US. The rest spent long terms in jails
The choppers were bunched up as closely together as possible, many probably on their tail end of fuel as they'd be landed in order of least fuel remaining. Figuring all of that out in a under an hour without creating any risk to the civilians who were already everywhere in and between would have been nigh impossible.
It was an emergency situation. The carrier was the only safe landing zone for hundreds, if not thousands, of miles.
The choppers had been flying at or above max capacity for long distance, and would have been low on fuel already. Fueling them on the flight deck would not only have taken more time but presented its own significant risk of fire particularly in the confusion and nonstandard ops environment.
I went on holiday to Vietnam a few years ago. One of our guides told that it was still pretty much impossible to get a government job if one of your relatives had served in the ARVN - even if they had been a conscript. Which seems mad. They also told us a few stories about how corrupt their politicians were.
The story certainly pulls at the heart strings, and it's amazing it was completed without casualty, but it also serves as a reminder of just what a cluster fuck of waste and danger a war actually is...
Something close to what we saw in the early days of the war when it nearly happened: huge numbers of Ukranians streaming across the European borders.
Once Ukraine surrendered there would then be a question of whether to allow "free Ukranian" forces to operate from inside NATO, or arrest them. Would there be a series of escalating incidents towards a direct NATO-Russia war?
I don't think poland has any chance to win against Russia, and I don't believe NATO would support an offensive, or even help defend Poland if Poland started it. And it seems implausible that Poland doesn't realize this, or is crazy enough to take the risk.
Russia is not showing itself to be particularly not good at war.
And drones suck up the meat attacks.
Best thing Poland could do is parachute into crimea and watch the negotiations from afar.
Everyone else needs to start training their meat (to die valiantly) two years ago.
I did speak to folks on the North Vietnamese side. I kinda found it really interesting.
They read these stories of escape as emblematic of the southern government’s cowardice rather than heroism. In some ways these are stories of active military deserting their posts.
It was no surprise to these North Vietnamese patriots that they triumphed.
Considering the hundreds of thousands (millions?) that were imprisoned after the war for any suspected contact with the Americans or South Vietnamese government, and the horrific conditions they were held under (forced labor, malnutrition, disease, death) they maybe shouldn't act so surprised?
Even today in Vietnam, these families are still "marked" by the regime and not allowed to serve in government roles for three generations. It's a blood liable.
Given the acts of brutality committed by the VC against those who didn't willingly join their cause, I wouldn't have stuck around with my family, either. One example from, as I recall, early in the division was burning alive the mayor of a village that refused to adopt communism. These things never get talked about and the only reason I've even heard of this was from listening to an interview on Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Addendum podcast.
> I wouldn't have stuck around with my family, either
Which is a major plot point of stories like Handmaid's Tale where you get caught in a civil war with opposing views of the territory you're in when it starts. You didn't start the war, but now you're an enemy for just living in your home. Do you just give up your beliefs or do you try to get out of there?
the US literally industrialized the process of burning alive people in vietnam who didn’t support the colonial government. would love a source on the mayor claim
You're a perfect example of why reporting about Vietnam was horribly broken. We all know about the atrocities committed by the Americans, but nobody understands how horrendous the VC were, and the direct threat they presented to those conquered.
I've already given you the source for the mayor story, but you're not actually interested in it, are you? You'll stay blissfully ignorant with false plausible deniability.
do you have a source that’s written aka not a podcast? googling the mayor burning claim just brings me to your comment
even just a transcript of the episode you’re discussing. generally i find if someone responds with ire rather than a link, the event usually did not happen as they remembered it
Wikipedia has an article, with links to sources. I think the main source is Douglas Pike's The Vietcong Strategy of Terror[0]. Another Vietnam Expert, Bernard Fall, documents some of it in Vietnam Witness.
there is no mention of this 'mayor burning alive' story in either of these sources. nor do i really trust this book, written during the vietnam war, while the US propaganda efforts were mounting up.
I disagree with whoever is downvoting you - what you describe is exactly how this would have been presented to northern soldiers and civilians, whether or not it's true.
From an earlier similar story, a comment (to the article, not HN) observes:
I’d like to point out that a lot of our young men are currently attempting to do the exact same thing as was described above for the Afghani translators who served with the US Army even at tremendous risk to their lives. They have sponsored them for visas since their lives, and those of their families, are increasingly at risk back in Afghanistan because of their work with the US. Many of these Afghani and Iraqi translators saved US American soldier lives, and made it possible for the our soldiers to work with the local populations when this was critical.
Unfortunately, even as American soldiers are working hard to bring their translators they worked with, along with their families, to the US, they’re running into a lot of red tape back in the US, even though we’ve only filled a fraction of the visas that Congress allotted for Iraqis and Afghans who served with the US Army and other branches.
I'd like to point out that following events of the 20th of this month, that red tape has turned into a solid wall as the US has frozen all asylum and refugee actions, including those of people already cleared to enter the US, many with flights already booked for entry.
This includes "more than 1,600 Afghans cleared to come to the U.S. as part of the program that the Biden administration set up after the American withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021". That group specifically includes those who assisted the US during its campaigns in Afghanistan:
Many veterans of America’s longest war have tried for years to help Afghans they worked with, in addition to their families, find refuge in the U.S. Many were prepared for a suspension of the resettlement program but had hoped for special consideration for the Afghans.
The long-lasting harm this does to US goodwill, reputation, and the willingness of those abroad to help and assist the US in future remains to be seen, but will likely be severe.
> US goodwill, reputation, and the willingness of those abroad to help and assist the US in future
I’m afraid that there is a large group of folks in the US who put no value on these things, while not really understanding how much they have benefitted us (especially in the recent past).
This is first book in a series of three, where the first and third have been published, the second is in fact going to be two volumes, of which the second volume is about to be published and the first is not yet out.
The book IMO is superb.
The history of it is very simple : the French rules Vietnam, extraordinarily badly, the locals wanted independence - that's all they wanted. An end to violence, exploitation and corruption. WW2 happened, the Japanese moved in, then out, the locals declared independence, the French came back, and they wanted to keep Vietnam. The French shanghaied the Americans into helping them militarily ("they're all communists!!!") and the Americans were naive/gullible and bought into it. The French eventually left, leaving the Americans carrying the can and with so much investment of time and prestige they couldn't just leave.
In all of this, the locals suffered in the most appalling and horrific ways, and ended up stuck with Communism (which none of them had any particular interest in, and which they later turned to because they needed support and that was all that was available).
Basically far as I can see it all kicked off with French colonialism. The locals simply wanted independence. The irony is the USA - the bastion of independence and freedom - ended up fighting against this and slaughtering huge numbers of people who simply wanted to run their own affairs.
USA is a good country, as countries go, but it has made mistakes, and when countries go to war, the practical consequences of the mistakes can well be enormous.
(I can compare this to say Putin's Russia, which is an appalling country and will kill you and your family if you get in their way and using violence and torture to keep people in line.)
The United States became involved in Vietnam due to a chain of events and a strategic mindset shaped by Cold War pressures. The fall of China to communism on October 1, 1949, the outbreak of the Korean War on June 25, 1950, and the French defeat in Indochina culminating in the Geneva Accords on July 21, 1954, solidified a "with us or against us" worldview. This perspective, driven by fear of communist expansion, led the U.S. to see Vietnam as another Korea—a battleground where failing to act could result in a perceived loss to communism. Believing it had already "lost" China, the U.S. committed to Vietnam to prevent what it saw as another domino falling, reflecting a reactive and at times simplistic approach to global events.
> The irony is the USA - the bastion of independence and freedom - ended up fighting against this and slaughtering huge numbers of people who simply wanted to run their own affairs.
The US didn't fight against independence.
The French were long gone by 1956. Diem kicked them out of South Vietnam when he pushed Emperor Bao Di out. The French were quite salty about it, and actively worked to undermine what the US was doing thereafter.
The US has no interest in making South Vietnam a vassal state. It was nothing more than a bulwark against perceived communist expansion (incorrectly perceived). It devolved into a civil war between opposing Vietnamese parties, with superpowers backing each side.
Not intentionally, and I am not arguing that they did. I argue what the locals actually wanted was independence (and everyone else was more or less acting to prevent that, by whatever motives or means).
> The US has no interest in making South Vietnam a vassal state. It was nothing more than a bulwark against perceived communist expansion (incorrectly perceived). It devolved into a civil war between opposing Vietnamese parties, with superpowers backing each side.
Yes, except I would say the southern parties lacked actual genuine support from the locals. They were promoted by the USA because there had to be an indigenous party to develop into a stable country. The real non-Communist locals had been destroyed by the French.
> Not intentionally, and I am not arguing that they did. I argue what the locals actually wanted was independence (and everyone else was more or less acting to prevent that, by whatever motives or means).
I think that's a reasonable take.
> Yes, except I would say the southern parties lacked actual genuine support from the locals. They were promoted by the USA because there had to be an indigenous party to develop into a stable country. The real non-Communist locals had been destroyed by the French.
I guess I would ask at what point in time?
Prior to 1945, there were many pro-independence parties in Vietnam. Most were located in the North due to the proximity to China (and the freedom the civil war brought there to organizing activities). There was VNQDD who was relatively powerful, but was eliminated by the communists and it's vestiges eliminated after 1954.
The South was less organized and the communists were the leading pro-independence group. They were fought by the French, and yes, the French treated all pro-independence groups as enemies (which hurt them in the end as they may have had a chance at a semi-autonomous relationship with some of the groups).
After the Japanese left, Diem controlled the South and battled the communists quite successfully until the North decided to help them more directly (and ok more violence).
While Diem wasn't George Washington, he had a level of support when he was able to deliver peace and despite what the press says, wasn't anti-Buddhist (rather they were opposition political groups also vying for power). After a few coups and a questionable election, by 1970 Thieu was able to deliver on a functioning economy, relative peace and a lack of the worst democratic abuses, and had a level of support that could have continued had the war not escalated.
As studies of wars have shown, the vast majority of people are apolitical during war. 10% support one side, 10% the other, and 80% are just worried about their next meal and the safety of their family and will accept either.
And considering the number of South Vietnam who fled the war after 1975 (2M or 15%) and the remarkable last ditch battles that happened, there was maybe not support for Thieu, but their was support for the idea of an independent South Vietnam.
From reading bits of WW2 naval history, it seems "push aircraft off the carrier in an emergency" was more doctrine than you'd expect. Because the fuel is such a fire risk.
The worst-case scenario would be not pushing the aircraft off, the Cessna attempts a landing anyway, collides, and sets the entire carrier deck ablaze. Hundreds dead and the carrier potentially lost.
I suspect someone could make up some sort of violation, but it seems like it is unlikely there's a specific order preventing them. Ship's captain is going to have a lot of leeway to complete his mission. Punishing a high ranking officer in their efforts to save allies would not look great, and at the end of the Vietnam War, I'm not sure who was interested in that.
There was a very small presence of Americans in South Vietnam at the time - around 5,000. Mostly US government workers (e.g. USAID), CIA and some military.
When the US disengaged in 1973, it left most of the military equipment and gave it to South Vietnam.
So most of the helicopters and such that fled to the US fleet were South Vietnamese aircraft, not US aircraft.
So I assume the US has pretty much written them off before that.
From the bridge Chambers quickly consulted task force commander Adm. William Harris, who was at his battle station below deck.
“The admiral ordered me to tell the Bird Dog to ditch,” Chambers later recalled. [...]
Assuming he would be court martialed, Chambers ordered those helicopters thrown overboard as well. He later told interviewers that since he expected to be deposed by prosecutors, he turned away from the action to avoid seeing exactly how many were pushed into the sea. [...]
Chambers kept his job as the aircraft carrier’s captain and was later promoted to rear admiral; he retired in 1984. Nobody was prosecuted for the estimated $10 million loss of the helicopters that Chambers ordered overboard.
Saving civilians is incumbent on you in war whenever possible. Not like North Vietnam is going to start doing some strafing runs on your fleet either for an excuse.
You think only two countries would destroy a few helicopters' worth of value to rescue allied civilians during wartime evacuations where they're not under fire? I suspect we'd be pushing a catalogue of 100+ countries. Loads of examples from WW2 like Dunkirk/Operation Hannibal where you see the sacrifice of material for civilians.
No, there were dozens of examples during that North Atlantic campaign.
The U-boats would presumably have continued to rescue enemy military and civilian survivors throughout the war, if it hadn't been for the war crimes of the USAF which bombed the rescuers.
Yeah you’re actually right. I should have said “Americans”, meaning the individuals. You know history is truly shaped by the victors as no one should forget the unthinkable horrors the country inflicted on civilians yet here we are.
How many countries would push $10 million worth of aircraft (1970s money) to save civilians?
I know anti-American sentiment is very trendy on HN, but I found this interesting:
Sirius Satellite Radio runs 1970's episodes of American Top 40 with Casey Casem on Sundays. A few weeks ago I was surprised to hear a spoken-word piece called "Americans" by a Canadian named Byron MacGregor was a top-40 hit. Here's a sample of the lyrics:
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age
It was the Americans who rebuilt them
When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke
Nobody loaned them an old caboose
Both are still broke
I can name you five thousand times
When the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble
Can you name me even one time
When someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?
I don't think there was outside help
Even during the San Francisco earthquake
The US was joined in Vietnam, context of this article, by France (whose problem it was to begin with), Canada, Australia, the UK, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and other states.
The US was at the time in military alliances with much of Western Europe (NATO, 1949), South Pacific (SEATO, 1955), and an intelligence alliance (Five Eyes, 1941), amongst numerous other alliances and strategic partnerships.
The US was born in battle with the assistance of France. Lafayette and the Statue of Liberty attest to this.
At the time Americans was written (1974), the US was the world's leading superpower. It's not terribly surprising that in general aid flowed from the US to other states. But the flow and alliances were far from one-way even then.
Your song, as with your broader point and follow-ups, is an extraordinary misreading and misrepresentation of history.
Canada was part of the International Control Commision (along with Poland & India). Canada sold the US a couple $ Billion in weapons and allowed the US to test defoliating agents on a base in New Brunswick, and Canadians joined the US Military to fight in Vietnam.
Also, all of NATO triggered Article 5 (mutual defense) for the only time ever, after 9-11, and they went to Afghanistan. The UK and other countries, though not as many, went to Iraq. The competition with China depends heavily on alliances with Japan, S. Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and others.
In fact, no country depends on and utilizes its allies more than the US.
I'd focused on alliances and support received prior to 1974, the year the song (and the diatribe on which it was based) emerged.
In the subsequent 51 years, there've been additional instances, including much mutual aid during natural disasters in which the US has received (or occasionally turned down) assistance from other states, near and far.
I read worryingly little (no?) counter to the sentiment expressed by the lyrics as part of your message and the comments here. And the implication that people in other countries wouldn't spend $10MM of government funds to save a family instead of watching them ditch in the water is ridiculous.
- "The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly.
- An example of where the world has helped significantly: Post 9/11 wars
- A recent example of when the world has helped: Californian wild fires
- And separately from that, of those "five thousand times" where the USA has helped other people in trouble, I guarantee a lot of those actually had considerable benefits for USA, meaning it wasn't a charity thing but the USA got something they wanted out of it, as well. Which is fine but let's not kid ourselves about those motives.
Just opening Wikipedia on the San Francisco earthquake, under the heading "Relief" it gives some indication of the international support given:
> During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000, equivalent to $169,560,000 in 2023. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the Bank of Canada in Ottawa gave $25,000.
And if we're allowed to go back as far as the San Francisco earthquake to "judge" the world, maybe we can extend that just a little further towards independence, where France provided significant support to the fledgling nation.
"The Americans", is frankly, ridiculous, and anyone subscribing to the sentiments within betrays the same (and wrong) isolationist understanding of the world as they ironically indeed blame others to have.
> The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly.
The only time Article 5 was called, was by America... And most of the Europe obliged.
Danes too. Who are now being threatened by the new administration.
“I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said, when asked if he would rule out the use of the military. “It might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country.” He added, “We need Greenland for national security purposes.”
This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague. It barely qualifies as saber-rattling. The guy loves to posture, but the level of hysteria around it is absurd. I’m not a fan of this kind of rhetoric, but Europeans acting like this is a genuine military threat instead of just laughing at him is ridiculous.
Anyways, what were we talking about? Something inspirational I recall.
> This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague. It barely qualifies as saber-rattling. The guy loves to posture, but the level of hysteria around it is absurd.
It used to be posturing and blustering around acquiring territories was absurd.
People are hysterical because they aren’t sure if Trump is being serious or if he just is sh*t talking. Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.
Danish PM Frederiksen:
"I cannot imagine the United States would use military intervention in Greenland, and it is up to the people of Greenland to decide what they want."
Oh, interesting. I think that’s called self-determination, a key underpinning of democracy.
> Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.
Greenland is a critical strategic asset, and Denmark is incapable of defending it or its people. If Greenlanders are worried about being "invaded" by the U.S., they should be a hell of a lot more worried about Russia or China making moves in the Arctic. The world would objectively be safer if the U.S. took custodianship of Greenland, full stop.
I’m no policy buff, but I’d bet that if someone were willing to make a rational deal, like perhaps allowing the U.S. to offer security in exchange for a slice of Greenland’s massive untapped resources, this entire situation would be resolved, and everyone would be better off.
Again, I stress that the rhetoric around what is clearly a negotiation is not my style of doing business, but no serious person can argue that something has to be done about securing Greenland, nor do they think Trump is actually going to use military force.
Edit: I must insist that I'm not trying to be inflammatory at all. I'm sincerely concerned about this geopolitical implications of this potential attack vector and it feels like pride is getting in the way of our security in the West.
> This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague.
Still not taking him seriously? He's followed through on many boundry-destroying actions in just a week, not to mention the prior 8 years. Remember the raid on the Capitol to stop ratification of the election, and he just pardoned the attackers.
“Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war mongering Americans
I'd like to just see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplanes
Come on, let's hear it
Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet
The Lockheed Tri-star or the Douglas-10?
If so, why don't they fly them?”
I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities.
> Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet
Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus. Or, these days, Embraer. If other countries didn't have competitive aircraft the US wouldn't feel the need for tariffs.
This was written and published before Airbus' first plane was in the air, and decades before Embraer had a large passenger jet.
It also specifically states "jumbo jet." Does Embraer even have a jumbo today? The largest one listed on Wikipedia is 124 passengers, and that only came out in 2004.
So that was 1973, in between the first test flight and entry into service of the A300. I might argue that one reason Americans get a lot of stick from the rest of the world is exactly this kind of "America number one" stuff.
I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities.
This was not about the Vietnam war. Nor was it written by an American.
When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?).
When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?).
The author, himself, said it was not about the Vietnam War. You can wish as hard as you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You just insist on making that association, even though the lyrics explicitly talk about other crises.
Authorial intent only goes so far. You release a song during the tail-end of the Vietnam War and decry the fact that people are decrying the “war mongering” Americans? Well that’s the obvious association.
But authorial intent can definitely be pinned on juxtaposing whatever “war mongering” with apparently making great planes. I don’t know what kind of harebrained idea that was.
> I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War.
You hate to break it to me? That’s a bizarre statement. I’m not jilted by anyone over that war.
And the Vietnam War, again, was happening when the commentary was released and when the spoken-word song was released. Obvious associations.
Did Springsteen mean rah-rah America with his Born in the USA? No but it was still used for that purpose by some people.
I mean, he isn't wrong though. America back then was truly the paragon of the world and most Americans took pride in that fact and strive to live up to it. Nowadays the public is so divided half the country can't agree with the other half even on critical issues. Asylee now would certainly get treated with much more institutional hostility than back then.
That's fine. I'm an air force brat, and still believe that the USA has not lost that attitude. It's shadowed by bullshit politics and oligarchy, but on the ground with the vets I'm sitting with now literally, that spirit is not lost.
My family fought those wars. I believe in freedom. Don't tell me what Americans think
They had to remove the first theater commander in Iraq because he was prioritizing establishing a democracy too highly. The spirit is still alive but it's shadowed over. After Garner was replaced by the Secretary the new governor cancelled elections and appointed the whole Iraqi government himself, but if Garner hadn't really been trying to accomplish what they told everyone the mission was, the next guy wouldn't have been put there to reverse it.
Having lived in Vietnam, learnt Vietnamese, and spoken to quite a few Vietnamese elders. My impression is that they have far fewer gripes with the Americans than they do with the Chinese. Since one seemed to have caused an issue for a short while, while the others had caused issues for much longer.
It's a punchline still for the west. See: Top Gear Vietnam special, with the American Flag bike following the convoy blaring "Born in the USA" by Springsteen - a song which most definitely was NOT pro-Vietnam war.
>”Or a cowardly vietnamese traitor who sold out his people to a foreign power flees like a rat to escape justice. Let’s call a spade a spade.”
If your nation falls to the other side during a civil war, are you really a traitor if you choose to flee from the “justice” of the victorious revolutionaries?
I’d certainly make an attempt at a desperate long-shot escape in order to avoid getting sent to some “reeducation” camp by the communist forces that just took over.
My dad was one these ARVN soldiers. In the final days of the war he and his drill sergeant stole a helicopter as Saigon fell and flew west, expecting to keep fighting. They wound up in a refugee camp in Thailand and eventually made it to the US. He wouldn't see his family again until Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam 20 years later.
In those final moments, soldiers who knew how to fly took whatever aircraft they could get their hands on, (Chinooks, Hueys, Cessnas, etc.) and flew aimlessly, hoping to run into friendly forces along the way before their fuel ran out.
People get so tangled up in the geopolitics of these types of conflicts, and forget that every person the war touched has a personal story.
I’ve known quite a few Vietnamese who lived through the conflict and their stories, no matter how lucky they were, the stories are incredible and hard to comprehend, no matter which side and whether they suffered horribly or made it out real relatively unscathed.
Whether fleeing at a moments notice from your country of birth, never knowing where you are going or whether you’ll ever return. Or even the stories of people seeing the end and planning in advance what they will need and how to make sure family is ok.
Then you think about the scale of it and that tens of millions of humans went through it and it’s impossible to comprehend the scale of it.
What is really remarkable is the resiliency of humans. You speak to people who went through it and realize many have the perspective of “you did what you had to do” and “its a part of my life that is over now”, but try and imagine how hard it must be to live in a country of relative peace and see all these people around you who have never, and will never, go through anything similar, and try and have it all make sense.
It’s also really fascinating talking to people who stayed in South Vietnam after. The entire system is reset. The police, the government, even where you get your food is swept away and rebuilt. I’ve noticed many people thrive on rumors as the government isn’t known for transparency. Days after the war order is restored and you hear rumors of what will come. Neighbors gossip, you do your best to prepare and wait.
> It’s also really fascinating talking to people who stayed in South Vietnam after. The entire system is reset.
It took me a while to appreciate the significance of renaming Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City. I've lived in HCMC (although I'm not Vietnamese) and the renaming is actually controversial to this day, although most Vietnamese know better than to speak up about it.
Basically, imagine if Russia conquered Ukraine and then renamed Kyiv to "Vladimir Putin City".
> It took me a while to appreciate the significance of renaming Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City.
The interesting thing is that locals continue to use "Saigon" in everyday conversation. It seems like the government decided that wasn't a fight worth having.
Someone told me that several government agencies still use "Saigon" as well on logos and such.
The interesting thing is that "Saigon" came from the French occupation. The Vietnamese ruling under the French renamed it "Sai Gon", and the French used "Saigon". Before the French arrived, it was called Gai Dinh.
Historically, I think it's akin to when Russia conquered Russia and renamed St. Petersburg to Leningrad
Stalingrad, Léopoldville, Karl-Marx-Stadt, Constantinople. Many such cases!
> Constantinople
I think it's not the same if you build a new city :)
Didn't he rename the existing city of Byzantium?
He did not. He renamed it as New Rome.
The name Constantinopolis came after him. It was often just referred as polis. The name Istanbul is derived from "eis tan polis" (to the city) used as a common phrase during Byzantian times. Turks kept using this old names as Konstantiniyye (Constantin's city in Arabic) Istanbul, both only referring to the walled part of the city till mid-20th century.
> Basically, imagine if Russia conquered Ukraine and then renamed Kyiv to "Vladimir Putin City".
This is really a poor analogy. Kyiv is the birthplace of ancient Russia (Kyiv Rus) and for both Ukrainians and Russians it is like Jerusalem for Jews and Arabs. It is easier to imagine renaming Moscow into Zelensky City than Kyiv into Putin.
That's a strange historical revisionism in Ukraine. Traditionally, Rus history is considered to begin with Ladoga, then Rurik moved to Novgorod, and only later his successors moved to Kiev.
Saying that one true Rus is Kiev and not Novgorod or Moskow is rather a modern Ukrainian national myth. All and neither were true Rus.
Also the Rus were Norse warlords who conquered those lands.
[dead]
Except Ukraine is a sovereign nation - much like Russia (which in today’s form does not hold any reasonable claim to Kyiv) - and renaming either nations capital city to satisfy some man’s thirst for legacy would be equally vulgar. The analogy holds pretty well, from where I’m standing.
It’s a good analogy because to rename Ukraine’s capital city after its conqueror would be a gigantic “fuck you” to the people of Ukraine, rubbing salt into the fresh wounds of their conquest, which is exactly what North Vietnam did to the South.
You’re just doing the typical HN thing of responding to an analogy by pointing out differences that are irrelevant to the point of the analogy.
>> capital city after its conqueror would be a gigantic “fuck you” to the people
As how most every port city in North America is named by whatever western explorer first put it on a map? From Botany Bay to Vancouver, Los Angeles and even Virginia USA, placenames are pulled from the culture of the conquerors. Only when one gets into the hinterlands do local names appear.
Eh? There's a ton of Native American place-names on the East Coast? Including at least three States.
What white man is Chicago named after?
Well, you touch on a pattern: costal cities are named by European explorers on ships. Wikipedia states that the first use of "Chicago" was by the explorer La Salle, who was on foot. Explorers on foot are much more likely to use names derived from local language, Canada/Kanata being probably the most famous example. But areas mapped and explored by explorers on ships (ports/mountains and such) are generally given European names.
That is interesting. Any idea of why that is?
presumably it has something to do with the fact that when sailing an oceangoing vessel you aren't likely to be interacting with others for much of any reason until you pull into port. Which when a lot of these places were named, didnt exist. Shore excursions would have been ones where the large ship is moored off the coast and rowboats will be sent to shore with a dozen or so people for a temporary stay. Almost all of the food and safety would be back on the big ship
Manhattan?
And then Muscovites stole Rus name and tried to pretend they’re the leaders of pan(east)slavism. Probably one of the reasons for the outgoing war. Moscow wants to be the real Kiev. The only way is to destroy it.
The photo of a man carrying a baby and a woman by his side in the article is not of Buang Ly. The naval institute even has a video of the actual landing here:
https://www.facebook.com/NavalInstitute/videos/1638823169892...
Christ. Best I can do:
https://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675069507_evacuation-of...
The guides at the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola are incredible at what they do, and they were the first to introduce me to this story.
What’s especially wild is that we actually have footage of this event.
I highly recommend the Naval Aviation Museum if you ever find yourself in Pensacola or nearby!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7C3X5NTzBk
That’s a bucket list museum destination for me.
They have one of the SBD Dauntless dive bombers at the museum that sunk a Japanese carrier at Midway. Still has holes in it from AA fire if I recall correctly.
You are correct!
Any person who enjoys military/naval history will love this museum. It’s very well maintained and just has some of the coolest stuff in it.
Getting to see a Blue Angels practice for free is just the cherry on top.
Related:
A South Vietnamese Air Force Officer and a Crazy Carrier Landing (2015) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17991021 - Sept 2018 (67 comments)
I vaguely recall that there have been other threads about this too. Can anyone find them?
(Reposts are fine after a year or so; links to past threads are just to satisfy extra-curious readers)
Related:
How a Vietnamese helicopter pilot saved his family - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9462885 - April 2015 (15 comments)
Thanks—I think that's the story I was remembering.
If I'm getting this right, these are two different stories involving different pilots and different aircraft but they happened on the same day! (April 29, 1975)
dang - sorry, OP here, wasn't aware of those - thanks for satisfying the extra-curious
Not at all—reposts of this kind are welcome! The links are just there because some readers enjoy them.
[flagged]
> What does this post have to do with "hacker" news?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> critical comments [...] outright silly propaganda comments
I'd need to see specific links to say anything about them.
> while you essential pin this thread on the frontpage
Nobody pinned anything. The thread is ranking on the frontpage because it got plenty of upvotes.
Could you please stop flaming now? You've been doing way too much of that, and not only in this thread.
If you ever have a chance, talk to Vietnamese immigrants that you work with, and hear their stories of escape. Nearly everyone I've spoken to has a book or movie-worthy tale to tell.
Many went through tough times after the war was over and left years later.
That applies equally to most people having been through war and becoming refugees. I know a couple of people who fled from Afghanistan, and that wasn't exactly a cakewalk. Like "my brother was forced to enroll in the talibans and got killed, so they ordered my father to provide another fighter, so he decided to make me escape to Iran instead at age 13, from where I walked / hitchhiked to Sweden in 2 years"
was the taliban going to follow into all of the EU countries in between Iran and Sweden?
The Sympathizer/The Committed though fictional have many details that match the stories of different people I know, with the taking off from Saigon airfield while under attack from NVA to others escaping on a boat with only the hope of being picked up by friendlies of some stripe and avoiding pirates or others who could only escape in any case with some of their immediate family and had to get the rest reunited years later. Not a few of the ones old enough to remember the details though are getting scarce simply because of age (some of the people I know were too young to remember anything and had to rely on their parents memories).
I worked with a Vietnamese lady for many years. She refused to ever talk about her escape. She would simply only say, "I was very young. It was bad. I don't like to remember it."
My grandmother said the same thing about the end of the Second World War as a young German and wouldn’t elaborate.
The brain has this nice thing of removing traumatizing memories so that it can move on. Asking people about these things is not a good idea. Just let them recount the tales if they want.
Yup: many settled in southern coastal states and endured vicious racism aimed at keeping them from shrimping.
I remember seeing women on the sides of the highway in one part of town gathering plants to eat, there's plenty of edible stuff out there, and my parents telling me they were refugees. Must have been in '74/'75 and I was a wee lad. In a Southern state. My parents were PhDs from Berkley and UCLA who got positions in the south so it was a weird time and place. For everyone.
There's no doubt that racism played a role, but a lot of the bitterness was more related to the fact that a huge influx of people, some of them very desperate, arrived and worked in the shrimping industry for low wages and in terrible conditions. This cut the rest of of the labor market off at the knees.
Suddenly a lot of people who had had the job for years, and had maybe been doing it for generations as a family trade, either lost their job or were unable to carry it out profitably.
Many are still here in Louisiana and Texas. But in Louisiana and New Orleans the population is shrinking.
From 2.3% in 2010 to 1.8% in 2020 of Louisiana’s population.
the 'luxury' apt building I live in has lots of Ukrainians and Russians (amongst the tech, influencers and onlyfans merchants, the only stateside people that can seemingly afford this location)
the men have really harrowing stories of escaping their respective countries since they weren't allowed to leave, being draftable
and its all very current and ongoing
the 'luxury' apt building I live in has lots of Ukrainians and Russians… the men have really harrowing stories of escaping their respective countries since they weren't allowed to leave, being draftable
My next-door neighbor is one of them.
We were on nodding terms in the hallway for about six months after he moved in, then one day I saw him at the trash chute wearing a "Fuck Putin" shirt, and I asked him about it. He started to tell me his story, and then suddenly stopped, saying he didn't want to talk about it anymore.
Based on the start of the story, I can understand him not wanting to finish it.
Were they Russian or Ukrainian? My casual understanding is that the draft is much more significant in Ukraine, although it's hard to find details of it and the penalties for dodgers.
Russians could leave way easier than Ukrainians, though.
I can confirm friends coming in/out of Russia without much change. All IT workers are exempted from mobilization. People after 30 yo are safe from draft. Yonger are supposed to be draftable but I know someone who is 2x yo and went to visit Russia, fly in and out with no issues. The only difference is airplane tickets more expensive now.
Meanwhile men in Ukraine can be mobilized on the street and good luck leaving the country
> All IT workers are exempted from mobilization.
This isn't entirely true. A friend of mine (who works in IT) got drafted. In 3 days he ended up getting a pregnancy certificate faked, so he and his girlfriend could get legally married quickly (for immigration options elsewhere) - and fled the country.
The draft is unequal, they are concerned about their IT worker shortage. The majority of drafting is happening in impoverished areas of the country, and ethnic minorities. Often people think they'll just be doing a driving job or something, and end up in combat. But nobody is truly safe. Your friend is taking a large gamble by visiting.
Don't conflate things.
mobilization is not the same as mandatory draft. draft it still applies to all including IT workers just like before the war. But you are "not home" to get the povestka you are fine. Also almost everyone seems to have some sort of exemption via employment or whatever. No one snatches people on the streets or when exiting the country like in Ukraine
I don't think I heard of anyone drafted to war but I know many russians knowingly went to war to make money on contract basis (which is also not the same as mandatory draft).
Now if mobilization happens they would be more aggressive but as I say IT workers are officially exempt from it.
As unfair as that is, Russians can still rely on basically volunteers who an average choose to be there, Ukrainians do not. I've heard many horror stories from there. About men who are basically hiding in cellars so that the recruteers won't pull them off the streets.
Fucked situation all around. I want to blame Russians as the only ones responsible for that, I guess. (As in they started this. Not saying Ukraine is crystal clear with many issues they have with the army, but still I can't blame them.)
I'm Pole, so it's more personal for me. Knowing if I was born a bit more to the East, I'd be awaiting my death (and in agony).
as a Russian, 100% Moscow started this, no need to pick words carefully. "Ukraine invited attack by doing something Russia didn't like" is ridiculous.
And as a Pole you of course know that Putin's "there are our people there we want to liberate" is the same logic Russia used to invade Poland before. Twice
sorry, I was unclear - I wanted to refer to the fact that Ukrainian army might be a little heavyhanded on things like draft - for understandable reasons - not to the war itself
that is only and purely on Russia and I cannot argue otherwise in good faith
Ukraine was invaded and is defending its sovereignty against a nuclear power.
Yes. But "harrowing stories" by escaping russians are by my estimation as a russian are 88% bullshit.
ok
[flagged]
[flagged]
Not sure what your issue is but it's pretty insulting to a lot of people.
It's a symptom of current US politics, sadly.
I expect it's gonna get worse before it gets better. The best approach, IMO, is to flag, downvote, and move on. Don't engage, don't get in arguments.
I don't mean this in general, just on HN which is not intended to be a political space. For some people, reactionary politics has become their entire world and it's important to show them this doesn't get the reaction they desire here.
[flagged]
Great to see a story about the USS Midway. It is currently decommissioned and permanently docked in San Diego as a museum for the public. I've been there - on the very landing strip seen in the photos. Really humbled to have visited such a key part of US history.
What a story! Just wild that so many helicopters were destroyed. But everyone on board the ship must have been so gratified that all five children survived.
As the war was ending, a lot of of these choppers wouldn't have been required anymore and would have ended up in some graveyard anyway.
Fair point, but that hadn't yet been determined and the flight chief and captain were taking a severe career risk (rightly IMO) in making that call.
This was really fun to read!
My in-laws are immigrants from Vietnam who left during the war. These stories feel a little closer to home than they would have before meeting them.
No simulator to practice on, just the will to protect his wife and family. and I'm assuming a pair of giant steel...
… wings.
The wings were aluminum though, not steel.
Your comment reads a lot like you were assuming that he was a layperson who never flew a plane before. The article looks as of it was deliberately staying ambiguous about that part. But the complete absence of any statement about his previous flight experience or lack thereof suggests that he was a pilot, but they prefer not to talk too much about that part for the sake of a gripping story. (it does say so in the title, even if a reader eager of sensationalism might very well argue "that was the flight that made him a pilot")
Zero experience in carrier operations is super-impressive nonetheless, but it completely pales next to the drama of setting out into nowhere overloaded and with a half-empty fuel tank. The airspeed delta between a Chessna and a carrier steaming into the wind is so low that the landing itself really would not be so that impressive. Impressive bit not crazy impressive.
As the article mentions, the most dangerous aspect of the landing may have been the turbulence and downwash over the fantail. Given that this was a STOL airplane (and also given that the pilot would have had no experience landing on a target moving at almost his stall speed) it might have been safer if the ship just pointed its flight deck into the wind.
I recall from flight school one instructor who liked to demonstrate that the aging Cessna 150 he was often assigned to could be landed in the width of a runway (as performed at an intersection.)
it might have been safer if the ship just pointed its flight deck into the wind
Reading TFA, that's precisely what occurred:
Chambers ordered his chief engineer to transfer the ship’s electric load to the emergency diesel engines and make steam for 25 knots (29 mph)... The captain turned his ship into the wind to prepare for a fixed-wing landing.... Buang lowered the Bird Dog’s flaps and approached in a shallow descent at a speed of 60 knots (69 mph). With the ship providing an estimated 40 knots (46 mph) of headwind to aid the landing, the light plane slowly caught up.
15 knot headwind plus ship's speed gave 40 kt landing wind, aircraft landed at stall speed of 60 kt airspeed, giving 20 kt to kill on landing. That was a risk on a slick deck, and from the accompanying video the landing was fairly far down the deck, but had sufficient braking distance.
I mean just pointing its flight deck into the wind with sufficient speed to hold it there, as opposed to heading into it at 25 knots (which required firing up six boilers, so I assume it was not initially steaming at that speed.)
It was always possible that the airplane could have gone off the bow with insufficient speed to do a go-around, but it might also be the case that the shallow approach was a consequence of trying to land on a target moving away, and that made it difficult to spot-land. My guess is the latter, though of course I can't prove it.
With a 40 kt wind down the deck, one would need the brakes to avoid being blown backwards off it, or into a reverse groundloop which might well lead to the same outcome.
Even just holding position would give some downdraft, from those 15 kt of wind. With 2/3 of airspeed compensated by the ship moving into the wind, and an airplane already quite good at short runway landing, the descent angle relative to the moving runway should easily be steep enough to stay clear of the downdraft.
Yet the pilot apparently made a shallow approach. I suspect that was due to having not landed on a moving target before - setting up the approach for where the ship was, not where it was going to be when he got there.
At first sight, it might seem the situation is just like a high-wind landing on an airfield, but there is a difference: on an airfield, if you line up for, say, a 3-degree approach, but the wind is stronger than you anticipated, you will need more power, it will take longer, and your descent rate will be reduced, but your flightpath will be as planned, with that 3-degree slope. In the case of a ship moving away from you, not only will you need more power than anticipated, but the path you follow will be shallower than planned, as it ends further away than anticipated.
Pilot not only had no experience on carrier landings, but no comms as to how to approach.
There were two practice approaches, so the mobile-landing element may not have been as significant as you're suggesting. That's of course hard to say either way.
An alternative view on the two practice approaches (or go-arounds?) is that he still made a shallow approach over the fantail.
The lack of communications means that the pilot could not be warned of the specific difficulties and dangers of landing on a moving aircraft carrier, over and above the ordinary difficulties of a short-field landing of the sort every pilot is supposed to be proficient in. In that circumstance, my guess is that minimizing the novel dangers would be the way to go, but, as you say, we are all just guessing here.
> Your comment reads a lot like you were assuming that he was a layperson who never flew a plane before.
You're reading something that's just not there then. I clearly left out the details as TFA clearly states he was a pilot (you just need to have read it and not skimmed). What I was referring to was landing on an airstrip on the ground is drastically different than landing on moving landing strip that also has hidden gotchas for trained pilots. Doing that for the first time as a pilot is one thing. Doing that for the first time with your wife and kids onboard is a whole other level. Your comment, however, is a whole other level going the other direction
his wife and family would likely have been much safer not on the plane
Reading anything about this war makes me tear up, and I'm not even Vietnamese.
I strongly recommend anyone who travels to Ha Noi to visit Hoa Lo prison - it's an excellent exhibition that shows the horror of both colonialism and war, and i think is made in a genuine good faith effort to promote peace into the future.
I didn't make it there, but the Cu Chi Tunnels near Ho Chi Minh City were also a sobering experience
This one got me, y'all. I'm sitting here imagining how it would feel to cram everyone you love most in the world into a poorly-provisioned plane, point its nose towards the ocean, and - with their lives measured by fuel in the tank - hope to find safety in time. Then, when against all odds you've found the ship, to trust their safety to the good-will of those below, and to your ability to execute a sketchy landing you've never practiced before.
I'm a relatively new dad, so an increasingly large number of my brain cycles are involuntarily committed to worst-case-scenario planning. Like, my kid choked for something like four seconds, and I tipped him over and banged on his back and he was fine, but I'd already mentally moved into the rest of the checklist: start a timer; call 911; Heimlich, Heimlich, Heimlich; send my wife for peroxide, a razor blade, and a straw; Heimlich, Heimlich. At 3.5 minutes, I'm making the cut. Like I say, the kid was fine, but I was a bit of a wreck for a little while.
There's one of those videos above (go watch 'em) where they're getting off the plane, and someone reaches out and pats the guy's shoulder, and his face is just numb. Like, it worked, and we're safe, and I don't believe it yet, and I'm glad they showed that shoulder pat, because I wanted to reach through the screen, and back through time, and do the same damn thing, tell him: "it worked; they're safe; welcome home."
I’ve been to the Midway twice and it’s the first time I hear the story. Must have overlooked an exposition or something. I also wonder why they didn’t bring the bird dog over to San Diego? I mean they have the F14 from the USS Enterprise who needed to land on the midway still on the flight deck.
Other than that. What an amazing story. I love the part that the captain didn’t care if he would not only loose his job but also get court marshaled for loss of material.
One of the saddest scenes I've witnessed was a march in Paris in 2005 where there were a few hundred south Vietnamese former up marching behind their former flag to a memorial. The thought of everything being lost was quiet strong.
[flagged]
What an amazing story.
That would make a great short film.
I love Hacker news and I’m finally creating an account. My dad flew these planes in Vietnam and I sent him this article. Here’s some of our conversation:
Me: You know this guy? Or have you heard of him? Dad: I have not. This is the 1st I ve heard of it The evacuation of Vietnam was a 100 times worse, horrific, etc. Than Afghanistan That pilot was very lucky...landing a light fixed wing on an aircraft carrier is impossible The swells of the sea, etc. Will bat that plane like a bug
Live or die.....hundreds of thousands friendly Vietnamese died when we left them unprotected
Me: frowny face
Dad: It was despicable
Much, much worse than Afghanistan.... the North Vietnamese slaughtered most all those that worked with US. The rest spent long terms in jails
Why couldn't the helicopters just take off and hover for a while?
The choppers were bunched up as closely together as possible, many probably on their tail end of fuel as they'd be landed in order of least fuel remaining. Figuring all of that out in a under an hour without creating any risk to the civilians who were already everywhere in and between would have been nigh impossible.
I assume getting them ready to fly, crews, and etc was going to take a while to launch them all.
And they weren’t useful anymore. In a time of crisis, that would just complicate things. Better to simplify.
An aircraft carrier can't launch 5 helicopters in less than an hour?
Not if they're cramming them as close as they can go to make space. As soon as they pushed the first ones off, more landed.
> Immediately, five more airborne Huey pilots took advantage of the cleared runway to land and disembark their passengers.
Basically, the situation in the pic at https://www.forcesnews.com/news/uss-theodore-roosevelt-chang..., but with aircraft instead of cars.
They were all gonna wind up scrapped or sent to the boneyard (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040204-N-312...) anyways.
To land where?
It was an emergency situation. The carrier was the only safe landing zone for hundreds, if not thousands, of miles.
The choppers had been flying at or above max capacity for long distance, and would have been low on fuel already. Fueling them on the flight deck would not only have taken more time but presented its own significant risk of fire particularly in the confusion and nonstandard ops environment.
As I read this article, with its meandering narrative and digressions, I kept getting frustrated and thinking to myself "get to the point!"
This says more about me than any flaws with article.
It really does.
Same reaction - I just scrolled down past the meanderings to see what happened.
I went on holiday to Vietnam a few years ago. One of our guides told that it was still pretty much impossible to get a government job if one of your relatives had served in the ARVN - even if they had been a conscript. Which seems mad. They also told us a few stories about how corrupt their politicians were.
The story certainly pulls at the heart strings, and it's amazing it was completed without casualty, but it also serves as a reminder of just what a cluster fuck of waste and danger a war actually is...
Makes me wonder what a hypothetical “fall of Kyiv” would look like today.
Something close to what we saw in the early days of the war when it nearly happened: huge numbers of Ukranians streaming across the European borders.
Once Ukraine surrendered there would then be a question of whether to allow "free Ukranian" forces to operate from inside NATO, or arrest them. Would there be a series of escalating incidents towards a direct NATO-Russia war?
Very different, as friendly land is not so far away and no water in between.
Look for fall of Kabul, if you are looking for dramatic scenes.
That would prempt a Polish invasion and reconquest.
I'm Polish and this is the dumbest thing I've read all day.
Last thing that we would want in a case like that is even more destabilization.
Honestly at best I do imagine trying to set a puppet govt as a buffer, but outright annexing that is so dumb of a thing that I can't even get started.
What?
I don't think poland has any chance to win against Russia, and I don't believe NATO would support an offensive, or even help defend Poland if Poland started it. And it seems implausible that Poland doesn't realize this, or is crazy enough to take the risk.
Russia is not showing itself to be particularly not good at war. And drones suck up the meat attacks. Best thing Poland could do is parachute into crimea and watch the negotiations from afar. Everyone else needs to start training their meat (to die valiantly) two years ago.
I did speak to folks on the North Vietnamese side. I kinda found it really interesting.
They read these stories of escape as emblematic of the southern government’s cowardice rather than heroism. In some ways these are stories of active military deserting their posts.
It was no surprise to these North Vietnamese patriots that they triumphed.
Considering the hundreds of thousands (millions?) that were imprisoned after the war for any suspected contact with the Americans or South Vietnamese government, and the horrific conditions they were held under (forced labor, malnutrition, disease, death) they maybe shouldn't act so surprised?
Even today in Vietnam, these families are still "marked" by the regime and not allowed to serve in government roles for three generations. It's a blood liable.
I like to think if I saw an opponent escaping a lost war with his family I would understand that someone who served is not a coward.
Not a good idea since they might be regrouping to fight another day.
war is aweful.
Given the acts of brutality committed by the VC against those who didn't willingly join their cause, I wouldn't have stuck around with my family, either. One example from, as I recall, early in the division was burning alive the mayor of a village that refused to adopt communism. These things never get talked about and the only reason I've even heard of this was from listening to an interview on Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Addendum podcast.
> I wouldn't have stuck around with my family, either
Which is a major plot point of stories like Handmaid's Tale where you get caught in a civil war with opposing views of the territory you're in when it starts. You didn't start the war, but now you're an enemy for just living in your home. Do you just give up your beliefs or do you try to get out of there?
All war is hell, but civil wars especially
It's true-- just like in Marvel the comic book movie, where the bad guy causes upwards of 50% casualties on the entire planet!
the US literally industrialized the process of burning alive people in vietnam who didn’t support the colonial government. would love a source on the mayor claim
You're a perfect example of why reporting about Vietnam was horribly broken. We all know about the atrocities committed by the Americans, but nobody understands how horrendous the VC were, and the direct threat they presented to those conquered.
I've already given you the source for the mayor story, but you're not actually interested in it, are you? You'll stay blissfully ignorant with false plausible deniability.
do you have a source that’s written aka not a podcast? googling the mayor burning claim just brings me to your comment
even just a transcript of the episode you’re discussing. generally i find if someone responds with ire rather than a link, the event usually did not happen as they remembered it
Wikipedia has an article, with links to sources. I think the main source is Douglas Pike's The Vietcong Strategy of Terror[0]. Another Vietnam Expert, Bernard Fall, documents some of it in Vietnam Witness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_...
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20230405095258/https://vva.vietn...
there is no mention of this 'mayor burning alive' story in either of these sources. nor do i really trust this book, written during the vietnam war, while the US propaganda efforts were mounting up.
I disagree with whoever is downvoting you - what you describe is exactly how this would have been presented to northern soldiers and civilians, whether or not it's true.
From an earlier similar story, a comment (to the article, not HN) observes:
I’d like to point out that a lot of our young men are currently attempting to do the exact same thing as was described above for the Afghani translators who served with the US Army even at tremendous risk to their lives. They have sponsored them for visas since their lives, and those of their families, are increasingly at risk back in Afghanistan because of their work with the US. Many of these Afghani and Iraqi translators saved US American soldier lives, and made it possible for the our soldiers to work with the local populations when this was critical.
Unfortunately, even as American soldiers are working hard to bring their translators they worked with, along with their families, to the US, they’re running into a lot of red tape back in the US, even though we’ve only filled a fraction of the visas that Congress allotted for Iraqis and Afghans who served with the US Army and other branches.
<https://tacairnet.com/2015/08/20/a-south-vietnamese-air-forc...>
That was called out in an HN comment: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17992951>
I'd like to point out that following events of the 20th of this month, that red tape has turned into a solid wall as the US has frozen all asylum and refugee actions, including those of people already cleared to enter the US, many with flights already booked for entry.
This includes "more than 1,600 Afghans cleared to come to the U.S. as part of the program that the Biden administration set up after the American withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021". That group specifically includes those who assisted the US during its campaigns in Afghanistan:
Many veterans of America’s longest war have tried for years to help Afghans they worked with, in addition to their families, find refuge in the U.S. Many were prepared for a suspension of the resettlement program but had hoped for special consideration for the Afghans.
<https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-c...>
The long-lasting harm this does to US goodwill, reputation, and the willingness of those abroad to help and assist the US in future remains to be seen, but will likely be severe.
I wish I could up vote this more.
> US goodwill, reputation, and the willingness of those abroad to help and assist the US in future
I’m afraid that there is a large group of folks in the US who put no value on these things, while not really understanding how much they have benefitted us (especially in the recent past).
US Army Center of Military History publications list;
https://history.army.mil/Publications/Publications-Catalog-S...
In particular;
"ADVICE AND SUPPORT: THE EARLY YEARS"
https://history.army.mil/Publications/Publications-Catalog-S...
This is first book in a series of three, where the first and third have been published, the second is in fact going to be two volumes, of which the second volume is about to be published and the first is not yet out.
The book IMO is superb.
The history of it is very simple : the French rules Vietnam, extraordinarily badly, the locals wanted independence - that's all they wanted. An end to violence, exploitation and corruption. WW2 happened, the Japanese moved in, then out, the locals declared independence, the French came back, and they wanted to keep Vietnam. The French shanghaied the Americans into helping them militarily ("they're all communists!!!") and the Americans were naive/gullible and bought into it. The French eventually left, leaving the Americans carrying the can and with so much investment of time and prestige they couldn't just leave.
In all of this, the locals suffered in the most appalling and horrific ways, and ended up stuck with Communism (which none of them had any particular interest in, and which they later turned to because they needed support and that was all that was available).
Basically far as I can see it all kicked off with French colonialism. The locals simply wanted independence. The irony is the USA - the bastion of independence and freedom - ended up fighting against this and slaughtering huge numbers of people who simply wanted to run their own affairs.
USA is a good country, as countries go, but it has made mistakes, and when countries go to war, the practical consequences of the mistakes can well be enormous.
(I can compare this to say Putin's Russia, which is an appalling country and will kill you and your family if you get in their way and using violence and torture to keep people in line.)
The United States became involved in Vietnam due to a chain of events and a strategic mindset shaped by Cold War pressures. The fall of China to communism on October 1, 1949, the outbreak of the Korean War on June 25, 1950, and the French defeat in Indochina culminating in the Geneva Accords on July 21, 1954, solidified a "with us or against us" worldview. This perspective, driven by fear of communist expansion, led the U.S. to see Vietnam as another Korea—a battleground where failing to act could result in a perceived loss to communism. Believing it had already "lost" China, the U.S. committed to Vietnam to prevent what it saw as another domino falling, reflecting a reactive and at times simplistic approach to global events.
> The irony is the USA - the bastion of independence and freedom - ended up fighting against this and slaughtering huge numbers of people who simply wanted to run their own affairs.
The US didn't fight against independence.
The French were long gone by 1956. Diem kicked them out of South Vietnam when he pushed Emperor Bao Di out. The French were quite salty about it, and actively worked to undermine what the US was doing thereafter.
The US has no interest in making South Vietnam a vassal state. It was nothing more than a bulwark against perceived communist expansion (incorrectly perceived). It devolved into a civil war between opposing Vietnamese parties, with superpowers backing each side.
> The US didn't fight against independence.
Not intentionally, and I am not arguing that they did. I argue what the locals actually wanted was independence (and everyone else was more or less acting to prevent that, by whatever motives or means).
> The US has no interest in making South Vietnam a vassal state. It was nothing more than a bulwark against perceived communist expansion (incorrectly perceived). It devolved into a civil war between opposing Vietnamese parties, with superpowers backing each side.
Yes, except I would say the southern parties lacked actual genuine support from the locals. They were promoted by the USA because there had to be an indigenous party to develop into a stable country. The real non-Communist locals had been destroyed by the French.
> Not intentionally, and I am not arguing that they did. I argue what the locals actually wanted was independence (and everyone else was more or less acting to prevent that, by whatever motives or means).
I think that's a reasonable take.
> Yes, except I would say the southern parties lacked actual genuine support from the locals. They were promoted by the USA because there had to be an indigenous party to develop into a stable country. The real non-Communist locals had been destroyed by the French.
I guess I would ask at what point in time?
Prior to 1945, there were many pro-independence parties in Vietnam. Most were located in the North due to the proximity to China (and the freedom the civil war brought there to organizing activities). There was VNQDD who was relatively powerful, but was eliminated by the communists and it's vestiges eliminated after 1954.
The South was less organized and the communists were the leading pro-independence group. They were fought by the French, and yes, the French treated all pro-independence groups as enemies (which hurt them in the end as they may have had a chance at a semi-autonomous relationship with some of the groups).
After the Japanese left, Diem controlled the South and battled the communists quite successfully until the North decided to help them more directly (and ok more violence).
While Diem wasn't George Washington, he had a level of support when he was able to deliver peace and despite what the press says, wasn't anti-Buddhist (rather they were opposition political groups also vying for power). After a few coups and a questionable election, by 1970 Thieu was able to deliver on a functioning economy, relative peace and a lack of the worst democratic abuses, and had a level of support that could have continued had the war not escalated.
As studies of wars have shown, the vast majority of people are apolitical during war. 10% support one side, 10% the other, and 80% are just worried about their next meal and the safety of their family and will accept either.
And considering the number of South Vietnam who fled the war after 1975 (2M or 15%) and the remarkable last ditch battles that happened, there was maybe not support for Thieu, but their was support for the idea of an independent South Vietnam.
What a moment for America. How many countries would push $10 million worth of aircraft (1970s money) to save civilians?
From reading bits of WW2 naval history, it seems "push aircraft off the carrier in an emergency" was more doctrine than you'd expect. Because the fuel is such a fire risk.
The worst-case scenario would be not pushing the aircraft off, the Cessna attempts a landing anyway, collides, and sets the entire carrier deck ablaze. Hundreds dead and the carrier potentially lost.
I am pretty jaded. This story really touched me; Vietnam was ugly. Really ugly. You don't expect to read these sorts of stories.
Not to place value on the act. IIRC Mass produced Vietnam Hueys are "only" 4M each in current USD and many were heavily used / deprecated.
I don’t know. My first instinct isn’t to assume that the first anecdote I find of something is unique to some entity.
it does sound like they were legitimately afraid he would crash the plane into the ship otherwise
I've always wondered about this event: did someone go against orders to do this? Did they get in trouble?
I suspect someone could make up some sort of violation, but it seems like it is unlikely there's a specific order preventing them. Ship's captain is going to have a lot of leeway to complete his mission. Punishing a high ranking officer in their efforts to save allies would not look great, and at the end of the Vietnam War, I'm not sure who was interested in that.
The article talks about the ships captain expecting to be court-martialed for it, but ultimately being promoted (not necessarily for this act).
There was a very small presence of Americans in South Vietnam at the time - around 5,000. Mostly US government workers (e.g. USAID), CIA and some military.
When the US disengaged in 1973, it left most of the military equipment and gave it to South Vietnam.
So most of the helicopters and such that fled to the US fleet were South Vietnamese aircraft, not US aircraft.
So I assume the US has pretty much written them off before that.
It's right there in the article:
From the bridge Chambers quickly consulted task force commander Adm. William Harris, who was at his battle station below deck.
“The admiral ordered me to tell the Bird Dog to ditch,” Chambers later recalled. [...]
Assuming he would be court martialed, Chambers ordered those helicopters thrown overboard as well. He later told interviewers that since he expected to be deposed by prosecutors, he turned away from the action to avoid seeing exactly how many were pushed into the sea. [...]
Chambers kept his job as the aircraft carrier’s captain and was later promoted to rear admiral; he retired in 1984. Nobody was prosecuted for the estimated $10 million loss of the helicopters that Chambers ordered overboard.
Eh, even nazis did stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
Saving civilians is incumbent on you in war whenever possible. Not like North Vietnam is going to start doing some strafing runs on your fleet either for an excuse.
So, 2?
You think only two countries would destroy a few helicopters' worth of value to rescue allied civilians during wartime evacuations where they're not under fire? I suspect we'd be pushing a catalogue of 100+ countries. Loads of examples from WW2 like Dunkirk/Operation Hannibal where you see the sacrifice of material for civilians.
No, there were dozens of examples during that North Atlantic campaign.
The U-boats would presumably have continued to rescue enemy military and civilian survivors throughout the war, if it hadn't been for the war crimes of the USAF which bombed the rescuers.
1. Survivorship bias 2. Countries didn't do it. Individuals did.
[flagged]
Yeah you’re actually right. I should have said “Americans”, meaning the individuals. You know history is truly shaped by the victors as no one should forget the unthinkable horrors the country inflicted on civilians yet here we are.
How many countries would push $10 million worth of aircraft (1970s money) to save civilians?
I know anti-American sentiment is very trendy on HN, but I found this interesting:
Sirius Satellite Radio runs 1970's episodes of American Top 40 with Casey Casem on Sundays. A few weeks ago I was surprised to hear a spoken-word piece called "Americans" by a Canadian named Byron MacGregor was a top-40 hit. Here's a sample of the lyrics:
You can read the full lyrics here:https://genius.com/Byron-macgregor-americans-lyrics
The US was joined in Vietnam, context of this article, by France (whose problem it was to begin with), Canada, Australia, the UK, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and other states.
The US was at the time in military alliances with much of Western Europe (NATO, 1949), South Pacific (SEATO, 1955), and an intelligence alliance (Five Eyes, 1941), amongst numerous other alliances and strategic partnerships.
The US was born in battle with the assistance of France. Lafayette and the Statue of Liberty attest to this.
At the time Americans was written (1974), the US was the world's leading superpower. It's not terribly surprising that in general aid flowed from the US to other states. But the flow and alliances were far from one-way even then.
Your song, as with your broader point and follow-ups, is an extraordinary misreading and misrepresentation of history.
Canada didn't fight in Vietnam.
Canada was part of the International Control Commision (along with Poland & India). Canada sold the US a couple $ Billion in weapons and allowed the US to test defoliating agents on a base in New Brunswick, and Canadians joined the US Military to fight in Vietnam.
My error, apologies.
Also, all of NATO triggered Article 5 (mutual defense) for the only time ever, after 9-11, and they went to Afghanistan. The UK and other countries, though not as many, went to Iraq. The competition with China depends heavily on alliances with Japan, S. Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and others.
In fact, no country depends on and utilizes its allies more than the US.
I'd focused on alliances and support received prior to 1974, the year the song (and the diatribe on which it was based) emerged.
In the subsequent 51 years, there've been additional instances, including much mutual aid during natural disasters in which the US has received (or occasionally turned down) assistance from other states, near and far.
I read worryingly little (no?) counter to the sentiment expressed by the lyrics as part of your message and the comments here. And the implication that people in other countries wouldn't spend $10MM of government funds to save a family instead of watching them ditch in the water is ridiculous.
- "The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly.
- An example of where the world has helped significantly: Post 9/11 wars
- A recent example of when the world has helped: Californian wild fires
- And separately from that, of those "five thousand times" where the USA has helped other people in trouble, I guarantee a lot of those actually had considerable benefits for USA, meaning it wasn't a charity thing but the USA got something they wanted out of it, as well. Which is fine but let's not kid ourselves about those motives.
Just opening Wikipedia on the San Francisco earthquake, under the heading "Relief" it gives some indication of the international support given:
> During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000, equivalent to $169,560,000 in 2023. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the Bank of Canada in Ottawa gave $25,000.
And if we're allowed to go back as far as the San Francisco earthquake to "judge" the world, maybe we can extend that just a little further towards independence, where France provided significant support to the fledgling nation.
"The Americans", is frankly, ridiculous, and anyone subscribing to the sentiments within betrays the same (and wrong) isolationist understanding of the world as they ironically indeed blame others to have.
> The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly.
The only time Article 5 was called, was by America... And most of the Europe obliged.
Danes too. Who are now being threatened by the new administration.
The only time Article 5 was called, was by America
30 years after this was written, so not relevant.
Who are now being threatened by the new administration.
50 years after this was written, so not relevant.
“Threatened”? That’s a stretch. From the AP:
“I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said, when asked if he would rule out the use of the military. “It might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country.” He added, “We need Greenland for national security purposes.”
This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague. It barely qualifies as saber-rattling. The guy loves to posture, but the level of hysteria around it is absurd. I’m not a fan of this kind of rhetoric, but Europeans acting like this is a genuine military threat instead of just laughing at him is ridiculous.
Anyways, what were we talking about? Something inspirational I recall.
> This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague. It barely qualifies as saber-rattling. The guy loves to posture, but the level of hysteria around it is absurd.
It used to be posturing and blustering around acquiring territories was absurd.
People are hysterical because they aren’t sure if Trump is being serious or if he just is sh*t talking. Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.
I encourage you to read the recent Reuters article on the topic: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-says-it-has-no-plans-increa...
Danish PM Frederiksen: "I cannot imagine the United States would use military intervention in Greenland, and it is up to the people of Greenland to decide what they want."
Oh, interesting. I think that’s called self-determination, a key underpinning of democracy.
> Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.
Greenland is a critical strategic asset, and Denmark is incapable of defending it or its people. If Greenlanders are worried about being "invaded" by the U.S., they should be a hell of a lot more worried about Russia or China making moves in the Arctic. The world would objectively be safer if the U.S. took custodianship of Greenland, full stop.
I’m no policy buff, but I’d bet that if someone were willing to make a rational deal, like perhaps allowing the U.S. to offer security in exchange for a slice of Greenland’s massive untapped resources, this entire situation would be resolved, and everyone would be better off.
Again, I stress that the rhetoric around what is clearly a negotiation is not my style of doing business, but no serious person can argue that something has to be done about securing Greenland, nor do they think Trump is actually going to use military force.
Edit: I must insist that I'm not trying to be inflammatory at all. I'm sincerely concerned about this geopolitical implications of this potential attack vector and it feels like pride is getting in the way of our security in the West.
> This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague.
Still not taking him seriously? He's followed through on many boundry-destroying actions in just a week, not to mention the prior 8 years. Remember the raid on the Capitol to stop ratification of the election, and he just pardoned the attackers.
I think people are afraid to take him seriously.
Apparently it was by Gordon Sinclair originally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(commentary)
That's... surprisingly bad.
“Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war mongering Americans
I'd like to just see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplanes
Come on, let's hear it
Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet
The Lockheed Tri-star or the Douglas-10?
If so, why don't they fly them?”
I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities.
> Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet
Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus. Or, these days, Embraer. If other countries didn't have competitive aircraft the US wouldn't feel the need for tariffs.
Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus
This was written and published before Airbus' first plane was in the air, and decades before Embraer had a large passenger jet.
It also specifically states "jumbo jet." Does Embraer even have a jumbo today? The largest one listed on Wikipedia is 124 passengers, and that only came out in 2004.
Date check: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2014/07/04/...
So that was 1973, in between the first test flight and entry into service of the A300. I might argue that one reason Americans get a lot of stick from the rest of the world is exactly this kind of "America number one" stuff.
I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities.
This was not about the Vietnam war. Nor was it written by an American.
When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?).
Do you understand the concept of associations?
> Nor was it written by an American.
And who said it was?
When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?).
The author, himself, said it was not about the Vietnam War. You can wish as hard as you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You just insist on making that association, even though the lyrics explicitly talk about other crises.
Authorial intent only goes so far. You release a song during the tail-end of the Vietnam War and decry the fact that people are decrying the “war mongering” Americans? Well that’s the obvious association.
But authorial intent can definitely be pinned on juxtaposing whatever “war mongering” with apparently making great planes. I don’t know what kind of harebrained idea that was.
> I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War.
You hate to break it to me? That’s a bizarre statement. I’m not jilted by anyone over that war.
And the Vietnam War, again, was happening when the commentary was released and when the spoken-word song was released. Obvious associations.
Did Springsteen mean rah-rah America with his Born in the USA? No but it was still used for that purpose by some people.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Tone deaf
I mean, he isn't wrong though. America back then was truly the paragon of the world and most Americans took pride in that fact and strive to live up to it. Nowadays the public is so divided half the country can't agree with the other half even on critical issues. Asylee now would certainly get treated with much more institutional hostility than back then.
That's fine. I'm an air force brat, and still believe that the USA has not lost that attitude. It's shadowed by bullshit politics and oligarchy, but on the ground with the vets I'm sitting with now literally, that spirit is not lost.
My family fought those wars. I believe in freedom. Don't tell me what Americans think
They had to remove the first theater commander in Iraq because he was prioritizing establishing a democracy too highly. The spirit is still alive but it's shadowed over. After Garner was replaced by the Secretary the new governor cancelled elections and appointed the whole Iraqi government himself, but if Garner hadn't really been trying to accomplish what they told everyone the mission was, the next guy wouldn't have been put there to reverse it.
Know your history.
The Vietnam War had significant opposition from the start. It only grew from '65 to '73.
Plenty of Americans back then wanted out, immediately.
[flagged]
Having lived in Vietnam, learnt Vietnamese, and spoken to quite a few Vietnamese elders. My impression is that they have far fewer gripes with the Americans than they do with the Chinese. Since one seemed to have caused an issue for a short while, while the others had caused issues for much longer.
It's a punchline still for the west. See: Top Gear Vietnam special, with the American Flag bike following the convoy blaring "Born in the USA" by Springsteen - a song which most definitely was NOT pro-Vietnam war.
Same with Poland and Germany - the... second world war was just an interlude, while Russians still are out there threatening us :P
[flagged]
> Why does every political operative style response always begin like this?
Cool it with the accusations there. The site guidelines call for assuming good faith.
Their argument failed when they had to refer to ad hominem
What are your views on South Korea defending themselves against the North in 1950?
>”Or a cowardly vietnamese traitor who sold out his people to a foreign power flees like a rat to escape justice. Let’s call a spade a spade.”
If your nation falls to the other side during a civil war, are you really a traitor if you choose to flee from the “justice” of the victorious revolutionaries?
I’d certainly make an attempt at a desperate long-shot escape in order to avoid getting sent to some “reeducation” camp by the communist forces that just took over.
[flagged]