What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire Defeated: Vietnam War - the lessons for today
"The Vietnam War was the longest conflict of the twentieth century – unfolding over 30 years, 10,000 days in length. This war left an indelible impression worldwide in the minds of the generation who lived through these tumultuous events. It helped to form the ‘1960s generation’ of young people who participated in and sometimes led mass movements and demonstrations against the established order of world capitalism. It was a powerful factor in the revolt of the student youth, who sympathised with the Vietnamese masses and their tenacious resistance to US imperialism...
"The implacability of the Vietnamese, their refusal to bow to the military might of the US, lit a fire under the US ruling class in the form of a mass antiwar movement which compelled it to withdraw from Vietnam."
- From the introduction
"The implacability of the Vietnamese, their refusal to bow to the military might of the US, lit a fire under the US ruling class in the form of a mass antiwar movement which compelled it to withdraw from Vietnam."
- From the introduction
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
190 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2004
1 person is currently reading
8 people want to read
About the author
Peter Taaffe
21 books5 followersPeter Taaffe was a British Marxist Trotskyist political activist and a longtime leader of the Socialist Party and its predecessor, the Militant tendency.
Taaffe was the founding editor of the Trotskyist Militant newspaper in 1964, and became known as a leading member of the Militant entryist group in the Labour Party. Taaffe was expelled from the Labour Party in 1983, along with four other members of Militant's editorial board.
Taaffe was influential in the policy decisions of Liverpool City Council of 1983–1987, according to the council's deputy leader Derek Hatton, and in the formation of the Militant tendency's policy regarding the Poll Tax in 1988–1991.
Taaffe was the founding editor of the Trotskyist Militant newspaper in 1964, and became known as a leading member of the Militant entryist group in the Labour Party. Taaffe was expelled from the Labour Party in 1983, along with four other members of Militant's editorial board.
Taaffe was influential in the policy decisions of Liverpool City Council of 1983–1987, according to the council's deputy leader Derek Hatton, and in the formation of the Militant tendency's policy regarding the Poll Tax in 1988–1991.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 9, 2020
Just a few lessons for you Peter. Here we go.
-How on earth can you go in to depth on a situation when you simply refuse to fully analyse the goals of the North Vietnamese?
-You are dismissive of ho chi Minh and the fact his boys were communists. You lazily approach the Vietnam war by labelling them "stalinists" and in such fail to understand what this war was about. There's a real lack of explanation as to the differences of North and South Vietnam.
-I am sick of your trotskyism and complete rejection of Stalinism. Your refusal to support communist regimes such as here, Cuba and Russia. You state here that this is not a part that supports workers. So why was ho chi Minh so popular amongst the people? Why did other communist countries support them? Russia frequently supplied them arms.
-I find it quite funny that you attempt to criticise Wilson's stance on Vietnam. His support of the US. Militants take was that the the UK should show no support for the war and US troops should just pull out and let the north and south decided. I think this is such a weak stance. As communists, we should be fighting US imperialism. The great irony is Peter's stance only perpetuates Wilson's US partnership. So you're actually contributing to the problem. You need to be a lot firmer. If there are problems with the ideology of the North Vietnamese this can be dealt with later. What comes first is fighting fucking US imperialism.
-This book attempts to go through the changing events and discourse with each president. I don't think it's as detailed as it could be with very little information given on key developments. Also this method fails to get to grips with what the North Vietnamese were fighting for. It's too much of an outside look. It just further annoys me because Peter is clearly very opposed to US imperialism by approaching it from this outside angle and criticising the US involvement yet continues to support it because it shows a real lack of support for the North Vietnamese.
-Comparisons are made with the Iraq war. Sometimes this comes off interesting and sometimes you just think these are two very different wars. Somehow Peter fails to see that.
-How on earth can you go in to depth on a situation when you simply refuse to fully analyse the goals of the North Vietnamese?
-You are dismissive of ho chi Minh and the fact his boys were communists. You lazily approach the Vietnam war by labelling them "stalinists" and in such fail to understand what this war was about. There's a real lack of explanation as to the differences of North and South Vietnam.
-I am sick of your trotskyism and complete rejection of Stalinism. Your refusal to support communist regimes such as here, Cuba and Russia. You state here that this is not a part that supports workers. So why was ho chi Minh so popular amongst the people? Why did other communist countries support them? Russia frequently supplied them arms.
-I find it quite funny that you attempt to criticise Wilson's stance on Vietnam. His support of the US. Militants take was that the the UK should show no support for the war and US troops should just pull out and let the north and south decided. I think this is such a weak stance. As communists, we should be fighting US imperialism. The great irony is Peter's stance only perpetuates Wilson's US partnership. So you're actually contributing to the problem. You need to be a lot firmer. If there are problems with the ideology of the North Vietnamese this can be dealt with later. What comes first is fighting fucking US imperialism.
-This book attempts to go through the changing events and discourse with each president. I don't think it's as detailed as it could be with very little information given on key developments. Also this method fails to get to grips with what the North Vietnamese were fighting for. It's too much of an outside look. It just further annoys me because Peter is clearly very opposed to US imperialism by approaching it from this outside angle and criticising the US involvement yet continues to support it because it shows a real lack of support for the North Vietnamese.
-Comparisons are made with the Iraq war. Sometimes this comes off interesting and sometimes you just think these are two very different wars. Somehow Peter fails to see that.
Displaying 1 of 1 review