NationStates Jolt Archive

Sparking off from another thread, I'm interested to hear actual points and arguments on whether popel think the Vietnam war was merely a war of National 'Liberation' under a useful cloak of rhetoric of Communism, or whether in fact it was full blown Communism vs Democracy?

Ho Chi Minh was rebuffed by Eisenhower and possibly Truman in post WWII for wanting to set up an independent Vietnam from the French (They wanted to keep the French sweet as NATO was being set up).

Then it could be said he turned to (traditional arch enemies) the Chinese for help in setting up an independent state. Obviously, they jumped at the chance to spread their influence.

But still, the fact remains: Was the Vietnam War a war of independence or simply Communists vs. Democratic ideals?

And had the South absolutely NO aid/support from outside parties, would it have survived as an entity? Therefore, could it be considered a 'civil war' at all?

I would say that the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon White Houses were extremely paranoid about the spread of communism. Then again, I would say that alot of it was a big dick contest between America and the USSR.

I'd say it was a war of 'unification and national liberation.' The North, being backed by the big bad Communists, made itself an easy target for the propaganda machines of the West, and the Americans were brought in en-masse after the advisors were failing to have the proper effect.

Often, I hear South Korea and South Vietnam compared. They're not comparable, because S.Vietnam was much, much more corrupt than the S.Koreans were. Also, the SKor guys actually fought, hard and well, and kicked ass. The SViet guys, usually didn't fight, usually starved, and often were killed off by their own officers. It was a really shitty situation.

All America did was manage to bolster a corrupt regime that fell down when the North Vietnamese shoved them after the Americans began to leave. It helps the Vietnamese to have the backing of the Soviets and the Chinese, as it was very much a "proxy war" when looked at from the global scale, as Korea was. The difference is that Soviet troops did not become directly involved, unlike American or UN forces in the Korean case, or American forces in the Vietnamese case.

Afghanistan is roughly comparable from the American viewpoint. The Mujahideen recieved a lot of material aid from the Western nations, in particular the States, and the Americans (For once) didn't send in troops. The Soviets, on the other hand, did send in troops, and fought very well, very hard, and for a very long time. Then they succumbed to the same thing the Americans succumbed to - micro and mis management, drugs, environmentally-induced casualties, and trying to fight an enemy that simply wasn't there. (The Soviets assumed that there were 9 "brigades" of Mujahideen in nine sectors of Afghanistan, when in reality such a threat never existed. They were trying to fight an organized machine that existed only in their heads.)

The Americans in Vietnam were incapable of fighting the enemy on their own ground for political or military reasons. Their light infantry, at the time, consisted of guys who had less equipment, rather than any specialized lightfighter training or ethos.

In my opinion, had the South not been backed by the Americans for as long as it had, the "war" as such would have lasted maybe a year.

I think a step too far. I'm fine with the policy of containment and the USSR and USA had a big rivalry over who had the biggest "sphere of influence" but Vietnam wanted to go communist on its own didn't have much influence from Russia.

Instantly going on the offensive causes problems. Sticking with giving them so much money they stay capitalist or use the CIA to assasinate the leader both better than full out wars..

Ugh, folks it was a civil war, the USSR wouldn't of got involved had the USA not got involved. I personally blame the French for that one. But the Americans only made it worse and in the end, they lost... so it was all for nothing anyway.

Was the Vietnam War a war of independence or simply Communists vs. Democratic ideals?
It was just a BIT more complicated than that. Ho Chi Minh was trained in Russia as a revolutionary, and while not totally comitted to the communist way of thinking, was at the very least far too much a leftist for then-current US tastes. The Viet Minh had been fighting for independence from Fance since 1941 and, although ostensibly open to people of any political persuasion, was led by and operated on principles of the communists. It would be relatively safe to say that the Vietnamese independence movement was co-opted by the communists.



And had the South absolutely NO aid/support from outside parties, would it have survived as an entity? Therefore, could it be considered a 'civil war' at all?
No. South Vietnam was an amalgam of largely rural original residents, and a sizeable number of Vietnamese Catholics who migrated en mass from the North when the Viet Minh took over Hanoi in 1945 during the confusion after the Japanese surrender. S. Vietnam had neither the resources nor the coherence to fight the North on its own.

I was coming back to clarify what I said, which I realized a few minutes too late was disjointed and not really a coherant statement, but Eutrusca did a better job of it than I could have.

I was coming back to clarify what I said, which I realized a few minutes too late was disjointed and not really a coherant statement, but Eutrusca did a better job of it than I could have.
Thank you. I thought your statement was enlightening. :)

Nationalist war by people whom also happened to be more-or-less communist.

:p

I always find it a bit strange that Americans are willing to defend French Colonialism in Indochina by fouling up in precisely the same way they did at Dien Bien Phu, put it that way.

I always find it a bit strange that Americans are willing to defend French Colonialism in Indochina by fouling up in precisely the same way they did at Dien Bien Phu, put it that way.
The corollary to Dien Bien Phu is the battle of Khe Sanh, which is an American tactical victory, and an intentional trap that Giap walked right into.

I always find it a bit strange that Americans are willing to defend French Colonialism in Indochina by fouling up in precisely the same way they did at Dien Bien Phu, put it that way.
Well, you could put it that way, if you like, but you would be wrong. :p

Well, you could put it that way, if you like, but you would be wrong. :p
But I just did put it that way, and I'm right.
Khe Sahn is a fair point, but it doesn't alter the fact that Dien Bien Phu was a fiasco for America in much the same way as it was a fiasco for the French.
And you know, the whole business of Americans defending European colonialism by picking up where the French had given up? Weird.

50,000 American dead & 2 million North Vietnamese (not counting Viet Cong)


Yep they lost that war allright :rolleyes:


It can be called a tie at best, America would have wo completely if not for the damn hippies and being betrayed by traitors in there own soil. America won numerically and tactically it proved to the world it would not tolerate Communism spreading. But strategically in the end the NV controlled it after the Americans just picked up there bags and left.

Also in the big picture, America defeated the communists finally by the bankruptcy of the USSR, and CHina turning away from communism (not willing to share Russia's fate).

God Bless America

Die Commie bastards die :sniper:

It was just a BIT more complicated than that. Ho Chi Minh was trained in Russia as a revolutionary, and while not totally comitted to the communist way of thinking, was at the very least far too much a leftist for then-current US tastes. The Viet Minh had been fighting for independence from Fance since 1941 and, although ostensibly open to people of any political persuasion, was led by and operated on principles of the communists. It would be relatively safe to say that the Vietnamese independence movement was co-opted by the communists.


No. South Vietnam was an amalgam of largely rural original residents, and a sizeable number of Vietnamese Catholics who migrated en mass from the North when the Viet Minh took over Hanoi in 1945 during the confusion after the Japanese surrender. S. Vietnam had neither the resources nor the coherence to fight the North on its own.

Thanks for you viewpoint.

Do you think that had someone like Truman or Eisenhower not turned their backs on Ho Chi Minh when he asking for recognition in the war against the French, the path to Communism would have been changed, and thus the Us would never have entered such a conflict?

50,000 American dead & 2 million North Vietnamese (not counting Viet Cong)
Yep they lost that war allright :rolleyes:


Soviet Union in WWII lost 20-25 million men. Germany, what, 2-5 million? Yet Germany, with less losses, still lost.

Whats your point?

This thread was not a question of 'Who won and who lost', it was about the origins, and the attempt to dispell the many myths that surround the War itself and the entry of the United States into the most important conflict of the past half century.

Keep the points comin' :D

The wasn't even a South Viet Nam untill the US canceled the planned national elections (because they knew Ho Chi Minh's faction had the support of the public) and installed some guy living in New York as South Vietnamese dictator. So you see, talking about how long the south would have lasted with US support is pointless, as there would be no "north" or "south" without the US.

And to Cybach, you hate communism so much, do you even know what it is? Can you give me a definition of Communism? Please, no profanity or insults, just facts, if you are capible.

Personally, I call the Viet Nam War a war of US imperialism, at the end of which Viet Nam finally got it's independence, which it had been promised at the end of WWII, and had fought for for years.

Thanks for you viewpoint.

Do you think that had someone like Truman or Eisenhower not turned their backs on Ho Chi Minh when he asking for recognition in the war against the French, the path to Communism would have been changed, and thus the Us would never have entered such a conflict?
( shrug ) Who the hell knows? :)

The wasn't even a South Viet Nam untill the US canceled the planned national elections (because they knew Ho Chi Minh's faction had the support of the public) and installed some guy living in New York as South Vietnamese dictator. So you see, talking about how long the south would have lasted with US support is pointless, as there would be no "north" or "south" without the US.

And to Cybach, you hate communism so much, do you even know what it is? Can you give me a definition of Communism? Please, no profanity or insults, just facts, if you are capible.

Personally, I call the Viet Nam War a war of US imperialism, at the end of which Viet Nam finally got it's independence, which it had been promised at the end of WWII, and had fought for for years.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of how wrong ( or wrong-headed ) it is. "US Imperialism" indeed! [ scoffs ]

[ Wonders where in the hell people GET this shit! ]

Soviet Union in WWII lost 20-25 million men. Germany, what, 2-5 million? Yet Germany, with less losses, still lost.

Whats your point?

This thread was not a question of 'Who won and who lost', it was about the origins, and the attempt to dispell the many myths that surround the War itself and the entry of the United States into the most important conflict of the past half century.

Keep the points comin' :D

Well, I guess it just means the Soviets and Vietnamese just won by sheer numbers and determination. Also, I'd wager that the Canadian, American, British, and French forces also played into Germany's collapse. They were on their way to Moscow, ya know, and might've even made it.

( shrug ) Who the hell knows? :)
:D Fair enough! :D

How about the 'one arm tied behind our back' theory? Do you feel had the US been 'allowed' to use its full force, all factors taken into consideration (ie response from other states at the time), the war could have been 'won'? :confused:

Also, I'd wager that the Canadian, American, British, and French forces also played into Germany's collapse. They were on their way to Moscow, ya know, and might've even made it.
Yeah. The Canadian and British forces might've at that time. But there surely as hell was no American (much less French) troops (of state) stopping the push for Moscow. Wouldn't you say?... If you actually knew something about it, you'd know you weren't part of the war then. Not even close. You were an important part in snuffing Germany later though. What comes to stopping... NO.

:D Fair enough! :D

How about the 'one arm tied behind our back' theory? Do you feel had the US been 'allowed' to use its full force, all factors taken into consideration (ie response from other states at the time), the war could have been 'won'? :confused:

I think if the US was allowed to use all means possible, yes, we would've won. Nukes are quite a deterrent.

Yeah. The Canadian and British forces might've at that time. But there surely as hell was no American (much less French) troops stopping the push for Moscow. Wouldn't you say?... If you actually knew something about it, you'd know you weren't part of the war then. Not even close. You were an important part in snuffing Germany later though. What comes to stopping... NO.

I guess you missed the word "collapse," which would imply the end of the war, but to each his own.

:D Fair enough! :D

How about the 'one arm tied behind our back' theory? Do you feel had the US been 'allowed' to use its full force, all factors taken into consideration (ie response from other states at the time), the war could have been 'won'? :confused:
Sigh. I don't know how many times I have been asked this. :(

If the frakking politicians had turned the conduct of the war over to the professionals and not placed the multitudes of restrictions on us that they did, the war could have been over with and won in about two-three years, tops.

I think if the US was allowed to use all means possible, yes, we would've won. Nukes are quite a deterrent.
But that would have demanded a response from China and the Soviet Union.. nuclear powers.

So that rules out Nuclear weapons then. And anyway, what the hell would you have nuked? The jungle?!

I guess you missed the word "collapse," which would imply the end of the war, but to each his own.
You know what..? I did. Please point it out for me... drunk as I am. :)
No, really... it just made me wonder... your post. All OK

Sigh. I don't know how many times I have been asked this. :(

If the frakking politicians had turned the conduct of the war over to the professionals and not placed the multitudes of restrictions on us that they did, the war could have been over with and won in about two-three years, tops.

Probably a lot :D

But how? Winning militarily, or 'hearts and minds'? Are we still thinking of this as a basic 'Commie fight' or something altogether more complex, with bits of nationalism thrown in?

Sorry to hound you, but vets are the best source of info from the era, and there are only a handful on here :)

I think it goes with out question that their probably wouldn't have been a war if the U.S. would have supported them against the french, being, as someone correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, that China was considered more then a rival at one point. However, I think communism was more then a practical choice for Vietnam's nationalistic independence movement. The country was largely an agricultural nation, and collectivism fits well in the rual eastern mindest. After Japan and France, a political movement that demonized industrialism against common labor, and was pro rualification in it's marxist tennates was an obvious conduit through which the people of veitnam could be galvanized. The answer is their probably wouldn't have been a war, but they probably would have been an extremely socialist state anyway, or marxist at least, if not comunist.

I don't think that nuclear application would have been necassary for the united states to win the war, either, I think complete unrestricted activity on the ground would have been enough, we were more intrested in using the war for a front to build up our military against the soviets, and for U.S. Corporations to try and rape Vietnam's natural resources.

As far as world war two, hitler's over extention, and his malpractic in adjudicating war on russia, prodominately his ignorance of the onest of of winter in the application of his tactics, and completely idiotic situations like stalingrad would have left him unable to defeat russia regarless of allied intervention in europe.

As for the original question at hand, for the N.Vietnam's part, it was largely a war about independce, for the american's part, it was a war about imperialism, and communism, but not to stop the spread of communism in the far east, to cover for a justification of the begining of a military build up against the soviets. Elements that influnced government long sought such an avenue for global political means, as well as lining their own pockets, similar elements that were behind the rise of goldwater conservatism, reaganism, and the instilation of G.W.Bush Jr. as president.

so I type to fast...I forget to add, the united states would have gotten plenty of concessions that would have been lucrative had they not been so greedy or foolish in the matter, and no war to boot...but I don't suppose I have seen much evidence that my own government has ever given a shit about wantonly sacrificing its people in warfare when it see's its end's at hand, not since before world war one at least...perhaps certain politicans and brass have been, and perhaps for political reasons the government over all pretends to be, and is careful about it, but the corporate elements that drive it definately value profit over life, as well as the true war hawks in the military desire blood, and most of our heads of state seek ego bound glory and power.

to see at least a vast majority are formed out of teh group who don't believe it was souly for communism.

Until 1954, it was independence.
After 1954, it was a civil war.
I'm taking a class about Vietnam now.:)

I'm taking a class about Vietnam now.:)

As did I (as part of the history of the Cold War).

Do me a favour, ask your lecturer/professor/teacher, this question and let me know what s/he says please :) :

Had the US withdrawn or never supported the South/propped up the South, would the South have existed and if not, without this help could it be considered a Civil War at all?

(For example, if Britain propped up the Confed. in the US civil war, and then withdrew its support causing the collapse of the Confed., could it be considered a civil war if one side was effectively being propped up by an outside interfering power)

Thanks. :)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of how wrong ( or wrong-headed ) it is. "US Imperialism" indeed! [ scoffs ]

[ Wonders where in the hell people GET this shit! ]

It was a war with the intent of extending US influence over another group of people/political entity outside the boarders of the US. How the hell is that not "US imperialis"? That's the freakin definition of imperialism


As to the question of if the US would have won total control over Viet Nam if they had no restrictions on military actions by politicians: of course. History has shown that, no matter how well organized, or how much popular support a gurilla force has, they will nearly always lose in the long run to a vastly superior foe.

Personally, I'm glad the military didn't fight completely without restrictions. The only way to defeat such a gurilla force as I described is for the occupiers/superior force to increase the level of brutality to counteract any advantages of the gurilla/rebelling force.

Inferior, rebel or gurilla forces have only started to win against superior opponents in the late 20th century, and only against democratic states (with a few exceptions). This is because in modern democratic states, a certain level of brutality becomes unacceptible to the general populence (or more accuratly, to a certain segment of the educated middle class able to weild social and political influence). Thus, opposition grows. In responce, the government usully resorts to either deception or repression to keep oposition down. This, in turn, causes the war it's self to be seen as a threat to democracy, thus opposition grows, untill it reaches the critical point that the gov and military cannot conduct the war effort effectively.

So in my eyes, I'm glad there is a social stop valve on the level of battlefeild brutality the government and military can use in these kinds of wars.

although, as I said before, South Viet Nam wouldn't exist without US invervention, so weather or not they could have fought North Viet Nam without the US is moot. The US created them, they were a proxy.

To Cybach, I never got a definition on what Communism is. Can it be you hate something so blindly, without even knowing what it is? ::shocked!::

I am quite aware on what communism is thank you. That is why I detest it so much. The ideal of Communism is a fairy tale of a worker's paradise, with everyone earning the same, no competition, etc.etc.. I read Marx and a bit of Engels. They were ignorant fools who understand nothing of economy, any 2nd year Business student should be able to point out the flaws of communism in an instant, Disrealiland did so already, I have no wish to type it all out again as he wrote it pretty good in my opinion.
What I am aware of is that Communism brought more death, sufferring and economic ruin then anything else in the world, and you preposterously doubt my hate of it? Any person with a heart would shoot all Communists and Bolsheviks lest they bring more death with their unrealistic delusional fantasies. Life is not a game, to be toyed with.
Also lets look at all the heroes and accomplishments Communism brought us, Stalin (killed over 50 million), Mao (as bad as Stalin), Pol Pot, Kim Il Jong (Country is a wreck with starving people everywhere). Russia has a terrible economy, China smarted up and changed to a capitalist direction. Now don't claim they weren't commuinists, that is as bad as holocaust denial, or saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi, it is disrespectful for all the poor souls who had to die for those idealogical fools with their twisted system and revolutions.
Also if Communism is so perfect, why do you have to overthrow the government, kill all those who disagree, or forbid free thinking. I view all Communists with utter loathing, same as with Nazis, they just bring death and unhappiness to people despite what they claim. The world would be a better place without them.

Soviet Union in WWII lost 20-25 million men. Germany, what, 2-5 million? Yet Germany, with less losses, still lost.

Whats your point?


I was going to use Gallipoli to make the same point, Twice as many turks as allied soldiers died, but in the end the turks were the one's left standing on the land, so they were the one's that won.

What I am aware of is that Communism brought more death, sufferring and economic ruin then anything else in the world, and you preposterously doubt my hate of it? Any person with a heart would shoot all Communists and Bolsheviks lest they bring more death with their unrealistic delusional fantasies. Life is not a game, to be toyed with.
Also lets look at all the heroes and accomplishments Communism brought us, Stalin (killed over 50 million), Mao (as bad as Stalin), Pol Pot, Kim Il Jong (Country is a wreck with starving people everywhere). Russia has a terrible economy, China smarted up and changed to a capitalist direction. Now don't claim they weren't commuinists, that is as bad as holocaust denial, or saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi, it is disrespectful for all the poor souls who had to die for those idealogical fools with their twisted system and revolutions.

Listen, I'm no supporter of Communism but your definition is all out of whack. The reason Stalin and Mao cannot be considered Communist is that they were totalitarian leaders in totalitarian states. It was a lone ruler mercilessly crushing all opposition. It was not by the very definition of Communism, 'Communism'.
Shit, Stalin even had his own style of governance named after him to show how much of a non-Communist leader he was! Stalinist leaders like Kim Il Sung and Kim Il Jong and then Pol Pot took after him- NOT COMMUNIST THOUGHT.

One could say they only Communist entity that existed historically would be the Paris Commune in the 1870's. Successful enough until they were militarily crushed.

I am quite aware on what communism is thank you. That is why I detest it so much. The ideal of Communism is a fairy tale of a worker's paradise, with everyone earning the same, no competition, etc.etc.. I read Marx and a bit of Engels. They were ignorant fools who understand nothing of economy, any 2nd year Business student should be able to point out the flaws of communism in an instant, Disrealiland did so already, I have no wish to type it all out again as he wrote it pretty good in my opinion.
What I am aware of is that Communism brought more death, sufferring and economic ruin then anything else in the world, and you preposterously doubt my hate of it? Any person with a heart would shoot all Communists and Bolsheviks lest they bring more death with their unrealistic delusional fantasies. Life is not a game, to be toyed with.
Also lets look at all the heroes and accomplishments Communism brought us, Stalin (killed over 50 million), Mao (as bad as Stalin), Pol Pot, Kim Il Jong (Country is a wreck with starving people everywhere). Russia has a terrible economy, China smarted up and changed to a capitalist direction. Now don't claim they weren't commuinists, that is as bad as holocaust denial, or saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi, it is disrespectful for all the poor souls who had to die for those idealogical fools with their twisted system and revolutions.
Also if Communism is so perfect, why do you have to overthrow the government, kill all those who disagree, or forbid free thinking. I view all Communists with utter loathing, same as with Nazis, they just bring death and unhappiness to people despite what they claim. The world would be a better place without them.

Communism, at it's base, is the concept of communal rather then individual ownership of recources, especially the means of production. This is a concept that predates Marx and dates back to the beginning of time. It has nothing to do with forms of government, or gov style, or any of that shit. There are several variations of the basic theory, the two major being state and anaarcho-communism. Now, state commuinism, I agree is an aweful idea, because it leads to people like Stalin taking power and destroying any hope of a real democratic communist society. Anarcho-communism, on the other hand, has no dictators associated with it, has never been the perpetrater of a genocide or massacer, and has, historiclly, been an stable economic system that provided well for all people involved. The few notible examples are the Paris Commune (crushed militarily) the Ukriane durring the Russian Civil War (betrayed and destroyed by Stalin) and the Spanish Rebolution (while fighing facists supported by Hitler, they were betrayed, once again, by the Stalinists).

Stalin has done more then any 1 man to destroy communism, both by destroying working models, because they showed that it can work without a strong central authority, and by deviating so far from the ideology as to change and corrupt it. Hence, Stalinism.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of communalism.

A wolf who calls itsself a fox is a fox. They called themselves communists, they represented communism, they screwed it up. So when I hear communism it is Stalin and Mao I see, as everone else should. You could say that Hitler was not a Nazi as he didn't adhere to all the Nazo ideals, but no one is foolish enough. Communists are hypocrites, following an impossible system, that just leads to misery. For this I have every right to hate them. Also I would be disowned by those damn bastards and possibly killed because I come from a family that makes money and a father who is a corporate businessman. They are to me what the Nazis are to the Jews, they wish to exterminate me, and you expect me not to hate them?

A wolf who calls itsself a fox is a fox.
No... a wolf that calls itself a fox... is still a wolf.


You could say that Hitler was not a Nazi as he didn't adhere to all the Nazo ideals,
Again, No. He did adhere to Nazi policys and ideals... he made them. Thats why he's called a Nazi.

Also I would be disowned by those damn bastards and possibly killed because I come from a family that makes money and a father who is a corporate businessman. They are to me what the Nazis are to the Jews, they wish to exterminate me, and you expect me not to hate them?

Disowned? I don't get you? Is a member of your family in a Communist party?

As a theory, Communism or more aptly, Communialism, is a good system. As a theory.....

In practice, man has a habit of screwing up theory. ;)

A leader can have tinges of Communism to his teachings, he (or she = La Passionara) can be influenced by Marx's writings- it doesn't mean they automatically equal Stalin. You shouldn't make such sweeping generalisations.

A wolf who calls itsself a fox is a fox.

And I'm Stephen Hawkings. Oh look, but I'm not a paraplegic. Nor did I publish any ground breaking theories on space time and black hole information loss. Guess that doesn't make me Stephen Hawkings then?

And I'm Stephen Hawkings. Oh look, but I'm not a paraplegic. Nor did I publish any ground breaking theories on space time and black hole information loss. Guess that doesn't make me Stephen Hawkings then?
Um ... just for future reference: there is no "s" on his last name. :p

A wolf who calls itsself a fox is a fox. They called themselves communists, they represented communism, they screwed it up. So when I hear communism it is Stalin and Mao I see, as everone else should. You could say that Hitler was not a Nazi as he didn't adhere to all the Nazo ideals, but no one is foolish enough. Communists are hypocrites, following an impossible system, that just leads to misery. For this I have every right to hate them. Also I would be disowned by those damn bastards and possibly killed because I come from a family that makes money and a father who is a corporate businessman. They are to me what the Nazis are to the Jews, they wish to exterminate me, and you expect me not to hate them?

Saddam called himself democraticlly elected. Bet we all know what's bullshit.

Hitler adheared to Nazi ideology. He invented it. He fallowed it.

Impossible system? I gave you several working examples in which everybody was provided for, unlike in capitalism.

They would like to exterminate you? Who is "they"? Stalin, probably. Me, when I was a communist? No. The vast majority of communists and communalists, no. So you see, you can't make vast generalizations against a whole group of people. It's just not true.


What you hate is state communists, or dictators. So do I. But to put all communsist in the same group as Stalin and the like is just bullshit.

Um ... just for future reference: there is no "s" on his last name. :p

I stand corrected. My point is still valid though.