Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 06:38:26 -0800

Message no. 1 <Vietnam>
> > Gurth, the US was at a SERIOUS tactical disadvantage.
>
> Yes, they were. They put themselves there, to be precise. (Ever seen
> Platoon? Sgt. Barnes' comment about politicians in Washington basically
> sums it up.)

Umm, let me get this straight...your opinion on Vietnam comes from anti-war
movies?

Seriously this is not a great discussion to start up. Noone here was
involved in the decision making for that conflict, doubtful many were
involved in it and even less have any real knowledge of it besides what they
have seen on TV or 'Platoon'.

<Perfect War>
> > Even so, the US did fairly to decently well. Had the war been fought in
> > "neutral" terrain (ie, the inhabitants, if any are not aligned to
either
> > side, and neither side is entrenched), the US would have won rather
> > decisively.
>
> Show me one war that was fought on neutral ground where the inhabitants
> were not supporting one or both sides...

Well you could say Desert Shield/Storm was a lot like this. Little to no
inhabitants in the conflict area. And those that were there were not a
problem.

Ken

> Gurth@******.nl

From:	Scott W iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:06:13 -0400

Message no. 2 "And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Tzeentch."
] > Show me one war that was fought on neutral ground where the inhabitants
] > were not supporting one or both sides...
]
] Well you could say Desert Shield/Storm was a lot like this. Little to no
] inhabitants in the conflict area. And those that were there were not a
] problem.

Except perhaps for the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians in
Baghdad. And no, they sure weren't a problem to the war effort, not
with the massive castration of the media that went on.

-Boondocker

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:18:35 EST

Message no. 3 In a message dated 11/18/1999 6:44:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tzeentch666@*********.net writes:

> > Yes, they were. They put themselves there, to be precise. (Ever seen
> > Platoon? Sgt. Barnes' comment about politicians in Washington basically
> > sums it up.)
>
> Umm, let me get this straight...your opinion on Vietnam comes from anti-war
> movies?
>
> Seriously this is not a great discussion to start up. Noone here was
> involved in the decision making for that conflict, doubtful many were
> involved in it and even less have any real knowledge of it besides what
they
> have seen on TV or 'Platoon'.

Huh. This, at least, is a true point. Kennedy made the first commitment of
troops, and then dropped it on Johnson when he ... ummm... bit the bullet.
However, the fact DOES remain that up until this time, wars were mostly
fought between two armies, with the people who were not in uniform doing
their best to stay the heck out of the way.

In Vietnam, none of this applied. I will agree that politics did play a
large part in the problem, but not all. The US had just faced the Cuban
Missile crisis not many years before and the threat of fallout still hung
heavily in the air... which affected the politicians who set the policy that
the troops in Vietnam would follow. Also, up to this time the Army was (and
to some extent, still is) was thinking conventional warfare, rolling battles
of Manuver in open terrain where the imporant thing was metting the enemy's
forces and defeating them, in detail (IE one piece at a time) if possible.

Tanks are not suited for jungle warfare. They are most assuredly NOT suited
for anti gurella warfare. And unlike previous wars, there was no easy way to
tell who was friend and who was foe, cept for your fellow 'round eyes'. Yes,
the US did have technological superiority, but the VC realized this and
forced them into a battleplan that neutralized it. They forced them to fight
in times and places where the US's weapons were not effective while the VC
and NVA's were. Let us also not forget that there were few to no places in
country where a solder was truely safe. Vietnam can and should be remembered
always, as its the most successful guerilla campaing to date in history. A
group of dedicated, politically motivated gurelas toppled not one, but THREE
governments, choosing their times and places to fight, dictated the course of
the war for the most part, and managed to eliminate the enemy's tactical and
technological advantages. Hell, the only real reason the US got involved
there was because the VC were backed by a communist nation, and the US, still
reeling from the McCarthy witch hunts and the Cuban missile crisis was doing
everything they could to check the spread of what they considered the 'Red
Tide' short of letting the horsmen of the apocolypse take to the air. Yes,
there were times when political desires over rode tactical reality... but
most of that action occured at the pentagon and inside the White House, and,
as Boondocker noted, most of those people are dead now, and of those that
arnt, I doubt any subscribe to this ML.

Turning our attention back onto topic, however, , in the sixth age, in many
ways is similar, though the fighting now is done with mercenaries in the form
of gurellas rather than their own forces... and the runners could be
considered the ultimate urban guerlla. So, this raises a question... has
anyone considered a campaing where the runners were hired AS guerellas to
help topple a government?

--
Starrngr -- Ranger HQ
HTTP://home.talkcity.com/TheSanitarium/Da_Muck/

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they
call you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:18:36 EST

Message no. 4 In a message dated 11/18/1999 7:04:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
iscottw@*****.nb.ca writes:

> ] Well you could say Desert Shield/Storm was a lot like this. Little to no
> ] inhabitants in the conflict area. And those that were there were not a
> ] problem.
>
> Except perhaps for the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians in
> Baghdad. And no, they sure weren't a problem to the war effort, not
> with the massive castration of the media that went on.

The key words here are IN THE BATTLE AREA. Most of the actual fighting took
place out in the dessert. The only people out THERE were good guys and bad
guys. The fighting in Dessert Storm is a perfect example of a "Battle of
Manuver" as the tacticians call it... where its all about moving your people
quickly, flankng the enemy and hitting it where they dont expect you to be.
The number of civilians in Bahgdad is irrelevant, and would have been even if
there had been open coverage, because these people were hundreds of miles
away from the battle. Its like saying the opinons of people in Phoenix
directly affect the results of a gang fight in Los Angeles... yes, they may
feel, but unless they actually traveled to LA, what they feel doesnt make a
darn bit of difference to the outcome.

Again, in a comparison, in 2060 the Renaku Ark decides to seal itself off
from the rest of the world. Even though it is a UCAS territory, the opinons
of people in say, the NY'plex, will have absolutly NO impact on what actually
happens if/when the President actually sends troops into the Ark. Assume
that the president listens to popular opinon and DOES send the troops in...
Once he does that, the die is cast... no amount of support on the part of
people in an east coast 'Plex is going to help the individual dogfaces once
they start engaging Deus and his 'friends'....

--
Starrngr -- Ranger HQ
HTTP://home.talkcity.com/TheSanitarium/Da_Muck/

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they
call you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.

From:	Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:53:35 +0100

Message no. 5 And finally, Scott W expressed himself by writing:

> "And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Tzeentch."
> ] > Show me one war that was fought on neutral ground where the
> inhabitants
> ] > were not supporting one or both sides...
> ]
> ] Well you could say Desert Shield/Storm was a lot like this.
> Little to no
> ] inhabitants in the conflict area. And those that were there were not a
> ] problem.
>
> Except perhaps for the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians in
> Baghdad. And no, they sure weren't a problem to the war effort, not
> with the massive castration of the media that went on.

Or the other civil part, the citizens of Kuwait. They
tried to hinder the iraqi occupants, and got massacred for it.
These pictures didn't get public until after the war too...

arclight

From:	Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:24:43 -0800

Message no. 6 > > Except perhaps for the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians in
> > Baghdad. And no, they sure weren't a problem to the war effort, not
> > with the massive castration of the media that went on.
>
> Or the other civil part, the citizens of Kuwait. They
> tried to hinder the iraqi occupants, and got massacred for it.
> These pictures didn't get public until after the war too...

As someone else noted: they did not matter in the actual battle, which the
original thread was related to. As fascinating as this information is, it's
not relevent to even this very OT thread.

I'm sure the citizens of WWII Dresden could relate to how much it sucks to
be a civilian in war, but that's not relevent - they were not actively
involved in the combat area like Vietnamese civilians were.

Ken

> arclight
>
>

From:	Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:36:02 +0100

Message no. 7 According to Tzeentch, at 6:38 on 18 Nov 99, the word on the street was...

> > Yes, they were. They put themselves there, to be precise. (Ever seen
> > Platoon? Sgt. Barnes' comment about politicians in Washington basically
> > sums it up.)
>
> Umm, let me get this straight...your opinion on Vietnam comes from anti-war
> movies?

<Claire>You guys are putting words into my mouth!</Claire> :)

My opinion of Vietnam comes from reading plenty of books and watching
serious documentaries about it. I used Platoon as an example because,
IMHO, what Barnes says is a pretty good summary of why the US messed up in
Vietnam.

> Seriously this is not a great discussion to start up. Noone here was
> involved in the decision making for that conflict

I do agree it's not a valid discussion for ShadowRN, but not because
nobody here was involved in it. If that was the case, there couldn't be
discussion about much of anything except by people directly involved.

It's not valid for ShadowRN because it's not Shadowrun-related, plain and
simple. If you want to talk to me about Vietnam, feel free to e-mail me
personally.

> > Show me one war that was fought on neutral ground where the inhabitants
> > were not supporting one or both sides...
>
> Well you could say Desert Shield/Storm was a lot like this. Little to no
> inhabitants in the conflict area. And those that were there were not a
> problem.

But it was not fought with only neutrals present. The people in the battle
area were most likely either happy to be liberated, or opposed to the
Coalition, although we never got to hear from the latter except in Iraqi
rhetoric.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Destiny is a state of mind
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:32:19 -0500 (EST)

Message no. 8 On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 Starrngr@***.com wrote:

> So, this raises a question... has anyone considered a campaing where
> the runners were hired AS guerellas to help topple a government?

No, but I run a campaign where the players are mercenaries in the
employ of the (Japanese) government trying to suppress a guerilla
uprising. Where does the campaign take place? You guessed it: Vietnam.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;

From:	DragonC147@*.com DragonC147@*.com
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:39:15 EST

Message no. 9 > <Vietnam>
> > > Gurth, the US was at a SERIOUS tactical disadvantage.
> >
> > Yes, they were. They put themselves there, to be precise. (Ever seen
> > Platoon? Sgt. Barnes' comment about politicians in Washington basically
> > sums it up.)

They weren't at a distinct Tatical advantage, We had bases in the
Philipines, which is not far from Vietnam at all, Also with the C-141
transport aircraft we transported things from Pearl all the way to US
facilities in Vtnm.

> <Perfect War>
> > > Even so, the US did fairly to decently well. Had the war been fought in
> > > "neutral" terrain (ie, the inhabitants, if any are not aligned
to
either
> > > side, and neither side is entrenched), the US would have won rather
> > > decisively.
> >

The fact that South Vietnam was not totally Neutral didn't play that big a
role in the Conflict. Politics is what gave us problems in Vietnam. At
first Congress was okay with letting LBJ go to war, because it would help the
floundering economy. But after the conflict started and the government
started drafting people and dissent in the country started Congress started
to hold back, and not let the conflict in Vietnam become a War because they
wanted to be RELECTED, so they didn't declare war, or let LBJ fight. Instead
they made US soldiers basically fight with their hands tied behind their
backs. Also another reason was the governments brilliant Idea of sending
soldiers to serve for only a year. So what we had is a about 8 1 year
conflicts instead of 1 8 year conflict, and so we basically had little or no
experienced soldiers until their tour of duty was up. In Summary the Vietnam
Conflict could have been easily won but we stopped the military people from
running the show, and we had politicians run the conflict.

Dragon Claw

From:	Scott W iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:45:30 -0400

Message no. 10 "And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Tzeentch."
] > > Except perhaps for the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians in
] > > Baghdad. And no, they sure weren't a problem to the war effort, not
] > > with the massive castration of the media that went on.
] >
] > Or the other civil part, the citizens of Kuwait. They
] > tried to hinder the iraqi occupants, and got massacred for it.
] > These pictures didn't get public until after the war too...
]
] As someone else noted: they did not matter in the actual battle, which the
] original thread was related to. As fascinating as this information is, it's
] not relevent to even this very OT thread.

Civilians mattered very, very much to the Gulf War. Even ignoring
the Iraqis and Kuwaitis that got slaughtered by both sides, there's the
impact of the American public. The media (and this is very applicable
to SR, if you think about it) was manipulated by the government to a
huge extent, and this showed in Bush's popularity polls. The war gave
him a huge boost; they were all for it. Would they have been if they'd
seen all of what was happening? Maybe, maybe not. If not, political
pressure might have made a difference in the way the war was fought.
Either way, even civilians not involved in the battle area can make a
big difference. Look at Kosovo...air strikes to beat the band, but
no-one wanted to send ground troops in, nosiree. The government knew
that the public wouldn't like dead Americans, so they kept up the safe
(but slow) tactic of bombing.

-Boondocker

From:	Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Fri, 19 Nov 99 19:29:42 -0500

Message no. 11 >Yes, the US did have technological superiority, but the VC realized this and
>forced them into a battleplan that neutralized it. They forced them to
>fight in times and places where the US's weapons were not effective while the
VC
>and NVA's were. Let us also not forget that there were few to no places in
>country where a solder was truely safe. Vietnam can and should be remembered
>always, as its the most successful guerilla campaing to date in history. A
>group of dedicated, politically motivated gurelas toppled not one, but THREE
>governments, choosing their times and places to fight, dictated the course of
>the war for the most part, and managed to eliminate the enemy's tactical and
>technological advantages.

Ok I hate to be the one to continue an obviously off topic thread
especially since I post so rarely anymore but I cannot let such blatent
disregard and or lack of knowledge of the facts go unchallenged.

1) The US was not defeated in Vietnam, Yes the North won the war but not
in 69 or 70 when the US was still involved. No they took Saigon in 75
about 3 years after the US had for all intents and purposes pulled out.
By that time the war was all but over. Yes there were still VC around but
they had been reduced in effectiveness to about where the PLO was in the
mid 80's and the North Vietnameese regulars had all been driven out or
killed. There certainly wasn't an army. The US had turned the mop up part
of the war over to ARVN (The South Vietnameese army) while still
providing a few special forces and air support. Then after the war had
all but simmered into an almost Korea like state the North Vietnameese
army invaded the South in a very conventional war of maneuver using an
army roughly the size of the allied D-Day invasion. Still the war was not
lost by the South, it's army held out quite well for about 2 weeks until
the US Congress turned it's back on our allies and our vetrans. You see
we had pledged millions in material support to the south in the event of
renewed hostilities by the North as well as a renewed air campaign
against the North. When the invasion occured Congress refused to release
the funds and the promised bombardment never happened. Finally after 2
weeks of constant fighting the South's supplies ran out and their army
collapsed. That is why there is only 1 Vietnam today.

2) There were no more than a few companies of VC involved in the Final
Invasion. You see they had almost all been wiped out in the Tet
offensives of 68 and 69. As a Geurilla campaign it was far less
successful than the Russian or Chineese civil wars which actually
succeded. In fact the guerilla campaign failed. By 73 or 74 they had
ceased to be a threat to the security of South Vietnam and the war was
taken over by the very conventional North Vietnameese army.

3) For every trick the VC used to neutralize our firepower advantage we
had several to return it. None of them worked for very long, after all
they didn't win 1 single battle of consequence. Also it seems that our
firepower advantage was quite effective as we only lost 55,000 soldiers
over the course of about 10 Years. Compair that to the hundreds of
thousands of VC and NVA combatants (I don't have the numbers close by) we
and out allies killed.

4) Ok there's France and for the sake of arguement the US but who is the
3rd country?

Steve

From:	Ereskanti@*.com Ereskanti@*.com
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:37:32 EST

Message no. 12 In a message dated 11/19/1999 7:18:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
einan@*********.net writes:

> Ok I hate to be the one to continue an obviously off topic thread
> especially since I post so rarely anymore but I cannot let such blatent
> disregard and or lack of knowledge of the facts go unchallenged.
>
I snipped Steve's commentary here because I wanted to point something out;
not only to Steve here but to everyone all at once.

*THIS* kind of reply, though nicely written, is a MAJOR part of the reason
that topics like "Vietnam" should not be brought up on this list. Steve, you
*can* let something go on, or perhaps simply take it to private email. Once
any of us begin to let our own emotions or stronger-opinions take hold, we
quickly loose direction along the way and conversational quality quickly
degrades.

Please, take stuff like this off-list or to a list that is more suited for it.

-K
[Hoosier Hacker House]
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
ICQ#-51511837

From:	Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:31:40 +0000

Message no. 13 In article <199911200017.TAA20643@*****.atl.bellsouth.net>, Steve
Collins <einan@*********.net> writes
>1) The US was not defeated in Vietnam, Yes the North won the war but not
>in 69 or 70 when the US was still involved.

The US was involved until 1972, pulled out then, and three years later the
North renamed Saigon "Ho Chi Minh City".

They got what they wanted, the US didn't - that's the definition of
"winning".

If the US didn't care whether North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam,
why did it shove 55,000 young men through a meatgrinder to delay that
outcome?

>No they took Saigon in 75
>about 3 years after the US had for all intents and purposes pulled out.
>By that time the war was all but over.

News to South Vietnam. They were utterly dependent on US support.
When that was withdrawn, they collapsed.

The VC destroyed, the NVA gutted... you'd think South Vietnam could
survive in those circumstances.

>2) There were no more than a few companies of VC involved in the Final
>Invasion. You see they had almost all been wiped out in the Tet
>offensives of 68 and 69.

True, but they served their purpose by doing so. The US public had been
told that North Vietnam was defeared and helpless... and then came Tet.

A military disaster, a political triumph.

>3) For every trick the VC used to neutralize our firepower advantage we
>had several to return it. None of them worked for very long, after all
>they didn't win 1 single battle of consequence. Also it seems that our
>firepower advantage was quite effective as we only lost 55,000 soldiers
>over the course of about 10 Years. Compair that to the hundreds of
>thousands of VC and NVA combatants (I don't have the numbers close by) we
>and out allies killed.

And yet they held out longer and achieved their goals in the end.

As the Russians later found in Afghanistan and Chechenya, you can't win a
war with "body counts" and "casualty ratios", and your young men are
still
dead no matter what gloss you put on their loss. If the enemy's more
hardened to casualties than you, a "favourable loss ratio" doesn't mean
much if anything.

>4) Ok there's France and for the sake of arguement the US but who is the
>3rd country?

Japan.

The what-if that interests me, is "what if the US had taken Ho Chi Minh's
side and told the French to get lost?" What if the US had been seen as the
benevolent power who freed Vietnam from foreign domination? Minh had
been seeking US assistance for _decades_, starting with Wilson... what if
he'd _found_ it?

--
Paul J. Adam

From:	Strago strago@***.com
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:06:12 -0500

Message no. 14 "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> <SNIP>

> >4) Ok there's France and for the sake of arguement the US but who is the
> >3rd country?
>
> Japan.
>

Huh? How'd they lose in Vietnam?

>
> The what-if that interests me, is "what if the US had taken Ho Chi Minh's
> side and told the French to get lost?" What if the US had been seen as the
> benevolent power who freed Vietnam from foreign domination? Minh had
> been seeking US assistance for _decades_, starting with Wilson... what if
> he'd _found_ it?
>

Well, Minh might not have turned to Mao and communism, but then again, he
might have, and then all of Viet Nam instead of just the North would have been
Communist.

>
> --
> Paul J. Adam

--
--Strago

In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder,
bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the
Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly
love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce?
The cuckoo clock!
-Orson Welles

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2+ SR3++ h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN+ SRFF W+ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++
d+) gm+ M P

From:	Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 99 22:06:44 -0500

Message no. 15 On 11/22/99 7:31 pm, Paul J. Adam said:

>In article <199911200017.TAA20643@*****.atl.bellsouth.net>, Steve
>Collins <einan@*********.net> writes
}}snip the argumentative stuff{{

>The what-if that interests me, is "what if the US had taken Ho Chi Minh's
>side and told the French to get lost?" What if the US had been seen as the
>benevolent power who freed Vietnam from foreign domination? Minh had
>been seeking US assistance for _decades_, starting with Wilson... what if
>he'd _found_ it?
>

Or take it one step further, What if we had backed Mao instead of Chaing
Kai Shek? There was a significant part of the US Military and Political
infrastructure that recognized what a self serving crook Chaing was and
thought that Mao was the true leader of the Chinese People. If I remember
correctly the choice was made by 1 US General who had a personal dislike
for Mao but I don't remember his name.

I'll handle these seperately.

First Vietnam
If we had backed Ho Chi Minh I don't think much of anything would have
changed. The name of the country would have changed but a Vietnam style
war would have been fought by us and a Soviet client state. Possibly
Angola, possibly Nicaragua, possibly someplace else that we haven't
thought of but it would have happened.There were lessons that needed to
be learned by both sides of the Cold War and it was going to take
something like Vietnam to teach them.

Secondly China
This would have changed history drasticly. The Chinese and the Russians
hate each other almost as much as the Israeli's and Arabs. Also there
were several border skirmishes between Soviet and Chineese troops during
the Cold War era. If China had come out of WWII as a strong US ally with
Mao as it's leader there would have almost certainly been a Hot War
fought between China and the Soviet Union that almost certainly would
have included a limited exchange of Nuclear Weapons (The Soviets never
had the same compunction against using them that we did and they did not
have nearly as much of a technology advantage to fight back China's
numbers as we did in Korea). It may have been possible to restrict that
war to the Far East but I'm not sure because we would have certainly
provided some support to our Ally and the Soviets may have seen broading
the war to Europe as a way to stop that. Other effects would have been
the lessening of the Red Sacre and McCarthyism in America. With only 1
large Communist state and a borderline superpower as our ally against
them the Soviets would have not looked anywhere near as scary. Japan
would be nowhere near the economic power that it is today as alot of that
economic advancement would have happened in a more open and friendly
China. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of any others off the
top of my head.

Now to bring this back on topic at least a little bit. A good campaign
source would be for the runners to be hired by the People's Liberation
Front (or other good revolutionary name) to ensure that certain Political
and Corprate Powers Back them in the revolution. They would be carrying
out the Political war abroad in the 2060's sense. It would include
Blackmail, Bribrery, negotiations, assasination, careful planting of
Media stories, there are lots of things that the runners would need to do
so that when the revolution succeeds the correct parties recognize them
as the legitimate government.

Steve

From:	Ereskanti@*.com Ereskanti@*.com
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:13:25 EST

Message no. 16 Folks, about this topic...as one list member to an obviously growing number
of list members...PLEASE take this one out of here....

-K
"Bastard GM" (as dubbed by Doc' ;-)
[Hoosier Hacker House]
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
ICQ#-51511837

From:	David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 02:29:11 -0800

Message no. 17 Subject: Re: [Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date sent: Mon, 22 Nov 99 22:06:44 -0500
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.net>
To: "Shadowrun List" <shadowrn@*********.org>
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.org

> On 11/22/99 7:31 pm, Paul J. Adam said:
>
> >In article <199911200017.TAA20643@*****.atl.bellsouth.net>, Steve
> >Collins <einan@*********.net> writes
> }}snip the argumentative stuff{{
>
> >The what-if that interests me, is "what if the US had taken Ho Chi Minh's
> >side and told the French to get lost?" What if the US had been seen as the
> >benevolent power who freed Vietnam from foreign domination? Minh had
> >been seeking US assistance for _decades_, starting with Wilson... what if
> >he'd _found_ it?
> >
>
>
> Or take it one step further, What if we had backed Mao instead of Chaing
> Kai Shek? There was a significant part of the US Military and Political
> infrastructure that recognized what a self serving crook Chaing was and
> thought that Mao was the true leader of the Chinese People. If I remember
> correctly the choice was made by 1 US General who had a personal dislike
> for Mao but I don't remember his name.
>
> I'll handle these seperately.
>
[SNIP]
>
> Secondly China
> This would have changed history drasticly. The Chinese and the Russians
> hate each other almost as much as the Israeli's and Arabs. Also there
> were several border skirmishes between Soviet and Chineese troops during
> the Cold War era. If China had come out of WWII as a strong US ally with
> Mao as it's leader there would have almost certainly been a Hot War
> fought between China and the Soviet Union that almost certainly would
> have included a limited exchange of Nuclear Weapons (The Soviets never
> had the same compunction against using them that we did and they did not
> have nearly as much of a technology advantage to fight back China's
> numbers as we did in Korea). It may have been possible to restrict that
> war to the Far East but I'm not sure because we would have certainly
> provided some support to our Ally and the Soviets may have seen broading
> the war to Europe as a way to stop that. Other effects would have been
> the lessening of the Red Sacre and McCarthyism in America. With only 1
> large Communist state and a borderline superpower as our ally against
> them the Soviets would have not looked anywhere near as scary. Japan
> would be nowhere near the economic power that it is today as alot of that
> economic advancement would have happened in a more open and friendly
> China. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of any others off the
> top of my head.

A little known fact is that BOTH Mao and Chang were Chinese
Nationalists trained by the Soviets. As a matter of fact both were leaders in
the same political party during the Sung Yat Sen lead revolution. It was with
the death of Sung that Mao and Chang split. The West (USA and the British)
backed Chang against the Japanese more because he was the recognized
leader of China then because of his ideology. Mao was a lessor leader in the
war against Japan who was in a geographic position to get aid from the
Soviets, He took the long view and began planning his revolution while the
war with Japan was still going on.
Assuming that we could have logisticly aided Mao, and that we would
have tollerated his other agenda (post-war control of China) being put before
winning the war I am not so sure that the result would have been much
different. Mao, was going to go his own way. He would have continued to be
a Chinese nationalist and communist. He might have been more "Tito" like,
that is communist but not completely within the sphere of the Communist
International, but he would have remained a Communist.
As to the degree of friendlyness, that would depend more on the West
(particularly the USA) then the Chinese.
While this thread is off topic it is of some value to players of Shadowrun,
particularly GMs. Some aspects of SR are an extention of current trends into
the future. Granted the introduction of magic and the variations of meta-
humans are artistic inventions and lack a RL foundation but the rest does.
Many believe that the WTO (meeting next week in Seattle) is the start of the
primancy of multi-national corporations. By looking back at history, we can
attempt to identify those key developments, people and events that shaped
the direction history took. That information can be used to attempt to identify
the recenient key events that will shape the future. In this case the SR future.
And by doing so help fleash out the SR world a little more.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

===================================================Those who are too intelligent to engage
in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato

From:	David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 02:29:11 -0800

Message no. 18 Date sent: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:06:12 -0500
From: Strago <strago@***.com>
Subject: Re: [Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam

>
>
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> > >4) Ok there's France and for the sake of arguement the US but who is the
> > >3rd country?
> >
> > Japan.
> >
>
> Huh? How'd they lose in Vietnam?
>
The United States backed a Vietnamese resistance movement headed by
Ho Chi Minh which tied up a Japanese occupation force for most of the war.
That force surrendered to the British (they had a force available to accept it)
after we dropped the two A-bombs on the home islands.

> >
> > The what-if that interests me, is "what if the US had taken Ho Chi Minh's
> > side and told the French to get lost?" What if the US had been seen as the
> > benevolent power who freed Vietnam from foreign domination? Minh had
> > been seeking US assistance for _decades_, starting with Wilson... what if
> > he'd _found_ it?
> >
>
> Well, Minh might not have turned to Mao and communism, but then again, he
> might have, and then all of Viet Nam instead of just the North would have been
> Communist.

Ho did not turn to the Chinese Communists he turned to the Communist
International (i.e. Soviet Union) in 1918.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

===================================================Those who are too intelligent to engage
in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato

From:	Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:47:37 +0100

Message no. 19 According to Strago, at 21:06 on 22 Nov 99, the word on the street was...

> > >4) Ok there's France and for the sake of arguement the US but who is the
> > >3rd country?
> >
> > Japan.
>
> Huh? How'd they lose in Vietnam?

They occupied Indochina during World War II (together with just about
every Western colony in the region), and Ho Chi Minh formed a resistance
movement against them.

> Well, Minh might not have turned to Mao and communism, but then again, he
> might have, and then all of Viet Nam instead of just the North would have been
> Communist.

Ho Chi Minh was already a communist in the 1920s.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Destiny is a state of mind
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject:	[Shadowrun] Very OT: Vietnam
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:16:21 -0600

Message no. 20 > Folks, about this topic...as one list member to an obviously
> growing number
> of list members...PLEASE take this one out of here....

I'll second that.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer