Pattern of US Cold War interventions Comparing the patterns of Korea, Cuba and Vietnam
Pattern of US Cold War interventions
- Now that we've done a series of videos on America's interventions during the Cold War
- in Korea---Korea and Cuba and Vietnam, I thought it would be fun
- to just think a little bit of the patterns here
- and just as in all of these History videos
- you have to take anything I say, or really
- anything anyone says about History with a grain of salt
- even when it comes to the facts
- obviously the facts can only be written by the people
- who survive, who knows what might have gone on
- behind the scenes that never got documented by historians
- so you have to take everything with a grain of salt. And even when
- you know, in this video, I'll talk about maybe some patterns
- some themes that I have seen
- don't take that as just the truth
- think about it for yourself. If it makes sense, it makes sense
- and if doesn't, try to look into it more
- and try to come up wth your own themes or your patterns or things that you can learn from
- So the general pattern across all of these is that
- before the US got involved and before a kind of a-- a Communist-leaning regime got involved
- these were all in some ways subjugated populations.
- In Korea, it was subjugated by the Japanese
- It was the Japanese colony.
- In Cuba, it was subjugated by the Batista government.
- And this was a dictatorship, a corrupt dictatorship and it was
- heavily influenced by the United States. You could almost view it
- as United States influence--a United States colony. They had so much
- influence with Batista.
- And in the case of Vietnam, it was a
- French colony. So you can imagine in all
- of these situations, the existing rulers were not that popular.
- People were looking for rulers who could
- kind of liberate them from the messes they were inside of that.
- On top of that, and this comes to the whole
- discussion of Capitalism versus Communism
- you can imagine that when you are colonized
- or when you are in a corrupt regime, you do have people
- accruing wealth. So there are people accruing wealth. Some
- of whom who get it without
- without being kind of that legitimate.
- And so these circles are kind of the size of different people's wealth
- So you can imagine, in Korea under Japanese rule, maybe there were a few people
- who were successful by being legitimate entrepreneurs.
- But there were probably a whole bunch of people
- who were successful by just...kind of...sucking up to
- the colonial powers. In the case of a corrupt regime,
- doing things that were corrupt with the regime, using
- the regime to get undue power in a certain market,
- And it's always a combination.
- In any of these countries, there were probably
- some entrepreneurs and some other people and some others who got wealth
- with good means and then some other people who, under these regimes
- who got wealth under questionable means. Maybe because
- they sucked up to the corrupt regime
- or maybe they even did outright criminal activity
- which was probably the case of the Batista regime
- probably they did have people who were outright criminals
- doing very well for themselves. Same thing in Vietnam,
- maybe the Vietnamese, some of the Vietnamese, who really kind of
- were aligned with the French probably got extra favors, so their wealth wasn't necessarily
- due to innovation or competence.
- But really just were they fitted into the political order.
- Maybe some other people did have legitimate wealth
- So you imagine when any of these types of
- situations start to emerge, from subjugation
- So, you start having independence movements
- In all of these situations. You can imagine it's a very
- popular notion to run on, and depending on how true it is
- but its a very popular notion to run on, to tell people look
- "You've seen all of these people who've gotten
- questionable wealth and maybe some of these
- people who got questionable wealth got it by
- being aligned with our subjugators
- By being, to some degree, traitors
- to our people. And once again,
- maybe not all of the people, but you can see how it's a popular line
- for someone coming to power when you're
- emerging from independent...or when you're
- emerging into independence, to say, "Why don't we redistribute wealth?"
- "Why don't we take the wealth from this person from right here who
- got it in questionable means, and redistribute it, and
- redistribute it to the rest of the society?
- Why don't we take it from this person over here, and redistribute it to the rest of society?"
- "Why don't we do that with this person here, and redistribute that wealth to the rest of society?"
- And, if you're looking for a political ideology that seems to
- fit with this idea of trying to correct things that
- maybe looked wrong during the
- colonial or subjugated rule, Communism
- seems to fit that. It's kind of a
- redistributing of wealth, or maybe the state
- takes over all wealth. Or maybe something in between where it's Socialist
- where the state is redistributing wealth fairly aggressively
- but you still have kind of underpinings of Capitalism
- And so you can imagine that Communism
- especially to a population that---where you have many many many poor people
- wealth concentrated in a few people, many of whom are
- aligned with the older regimes, Communism at least seems
- like a popular notion. And you have people
- who ride this Nationalistic, Communistic feeling
- and in the case of Cuba, you have people like
- Fidel Castro, people like Fidel Castro.
- In Vietnam, you have people like Ho Chi Minh
- And then Korea's a little bit different because
- you did have a Communist, Nationalist independence movement, but
- Kim Il Sung wasn't necessarily the leader of that movement
- the Soviets didn't actually want any of those people in charge
- any of the kind of the Natonalist Communist the leaders of those
- movement, they kind of marginalized them and installed Kim Il Sung
- probably because he was more aligned with them, but he was Communist
- Now the reality is, these guys
- come in under these very egalitarian, you know, equality for all
- let's get retribution for the wrongs that were done to us before
- But probably all of them start to not just redistribute wealth from people who
- might have gotten it in bad ways, but they're also
- just redistributing wealth generally
- Maybe because it's just a popular thing to do
- Or maybe because these people didn't give them proper support
- So they're getting retribution on their political enemies, and
- as opposed to just kind of doing it for social good
- So you know they might do it from people who have
- legitimate wealth and so those people aren't
- too happy about it. And
- they ride kind of this Communistic, egalitarian movement
- to install themselves and, instead of being a purely Marxist state
- they kind of want to be more Marxist-Leninist
- where you have this Communist party that has
- this continuous revolution, which
- is a justification for them to never hold real elections, and always stay in power
- So, by no means is this kind of a rationale why these people
- are legitimate. But what happened in every one of these cases
- is that the United States was in the middle of the Cold War
- They feared the spread of Communism.
- Communism tended to correlate with non-free state.
- It doesn't have to be that way. But every time Communism was implemented, it also
- was these kind of authoritarian rule, no democracy. And you can also
- imagine there were many capitalists in the United States who
- for their own selfish reasons, were afraid of [Communism] spreading to the United States
- because maybe their wealth would be redistributed.
- But regardless of what the justification, whether it was a more noble
- wanting people to have freedom of expression
- freedom to hold property, or whether they were selfish
- "Hey we don't want our own wealth to be somehow taken away."
- Or it just might have been a balance of power between the US
- and the Soviet Union, that every time a country fell to Communism
- that somehow, the US was losing some power in the world.
- Regardless of the US's rationale, they always say,
- "OK, These guys are Communist, we're gonna take the other side of the equation
- So the US ends up supporting
- Sig Muh Ree in South Korea
- whom we know was not the best character in the world.
- They end up supporting Diem in South Vietnam
- whom we also know was not the necessary the most savory person in the world.
- In the case of Cuba, the US at least
- they did support Batista while he was in power
- but we saw in that video
- Kennedy came on later saying, you know, Batista was pretty bad
- dude, and it was probably a big mistake for the US to
- support him. But the US goes on
- the other side and they support the exiles against Fidel Castro
- And here the Cuban exiles, they're not in the category of Sig Muh Ree or Diem
- they probably favor democracy and overall
- good people but what they probably
- did feed Kennedy is a story that Fidel Castro
- wasn't as popular as he actually was
- And he probably was more popular
- especially after the Revolution
- because he had this egalitarian, people were getting over the Batistas
- kind of anybody but Batista they would be happy about
- Fidel Castro was this charismatic leader who kind of
- working for the poor, at least it looked like he was working for the poor
- So at least in the get-go
- especially the Kennedy administration might have been fed
- an overly optimistic view that kind of got them
- involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion and all of that
- But this is just the general pattern that happened every time
- And every time, it ended up in either a US defeat
- or a stalemate, and you know
- Take whatever lessons there are from this
- but it is kind of an interesting pattern that happened multiple times
Be specific, and indicate a time in the video:
At 5:31, how is the moon large enough to block the sun? Isn't the sun way larger?
Have something that's not a question about this content?
This discussion area is not meant for answering homework questions.
Share a tip
When naming a variable, it is okay to use most letters, but some are reserved, like 'e', which represents the value 2.7831...
Thank the author
This is great, I finally understand quadratic functions!
Have something that's not a tip or thanks about this content?
This discussion area is not meant for answering homework questions.
At 2:33, Sal said "single bonds" but meant "covalent bonds."
For general discussions about Khan Academy, visit our Reddit discussion page.
Here are posts to avoid making. If you do encounter them, flag them for attention from our Guardians.
- disrespectful or offensive
- an advertisement
- low quality
- not about the video topic
- soliciting votes or seeking badges
- a homework question
- a duplicate answer
- repeatedly making the same post
- a tip or thanks in Questions
- a question in Tips & Thanks
- an answer that should be its own question