Re Drieux's UK Invasion [2 responses]

Robert P. Forbes (
Mon, 29 Jan 1996 10:24:25 -0500

Drieux wrote:

> Having Served as an American Naval Petty Officer
> in Her Majesties Royal Air Force Sargent's Mess
> while stationed in the UK, does this instantiate
> that I was a Part of the American Invasion of the UK?

For the benefit of the younger members on the list, the U.S. did not invade
the UK; rather, the British invaded *us*; a major '60s phenomenon that has
received inadequate attention here.

Hope this helps.


Robert P. Forbes (
Department of History
Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520 Tel.: (203)432-0714 Fax: (203)773-9777


p1: Of my collection of WarMongerBabyKiller Buddies,
most of them were leading exponents of the theory that
wars have a nasty way of interrupting Liberty Calls, and
as such should be embarked upon after serious thought had
been undertaken. I think I am pleased to hear that this
Sober Approach towards sending in the Troops may be leaking into
the Civilian Community. I just hope that it will take hold
as a Policy Decision at the Highest Levels. {I f You can bc me the
Information on Tom Well's book, I shall try to squeeze it in if at
all possible. }

p2: As for Pre-65, the Pre Tonkien Gulf Resolution Period, I
presume to recall that there had been a Referendum that had
passed power from Bao Dai to Diem, and it is this Referendum
during the Eisenhower Years that you are considering the Mechanism
by which The United States Thrust Democracy upon South Vietnam and
as such was the Grotesque Evil that Lead to all the Rest? I put this
forward, as having served in Wales, there was the Ongoing GiggleFest
of English Imperialism which the Welsh had elegantly countered by
exporting Rugby... So I would Not be so QUICK to presume that the
UK was not the Imposed Puppet Regime.... { This might not be
the right time to run up the Volume on the CLASH album while
listening to "London Calling..." }

p3: In light of the Recent Case of Spec. New, and the dissent
against Service under Foreign Command, i find it amusing that we
are, in regards to operations Prior to the Gulf of Tonkien Resolution,
speaking of a time when American Combat Personnel, as Advisors, were
serving UNDER the command of ARVN Command Elements. Is it your
contention then that you Agree that ARVN never Really Existed as
the Actual Armed Forces of the Soveriegn and Independent State of
South Vietnam, and thus that NO AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL had
served Under Foreign Command, since ARVN was merely the MediaPloy
of the Liberal Conspiracy? All of which, I will confess, is making
it a bit Hard to tell the RushDoodieHeads from the OldGuardLeftists...

p4: So that you understand that I have this argument with other
sources, you might read Lt.Col Summers (RET) book about the New
Ordering of the New World Order in which he spends a good bit of
time pointing out that all this with "Low Intensity Warfare" was all
muddled thinking, except that Reagan had done it right in Afghanistan...
So There are PinHeads on the Right who also do not have their Ducks in
a Row In My Most Humble Opinion.

p5: I believe it was Ed Moise who had listed a reference to a Soviet
Proposal to the UN that would have accepted both a South and a North
Vietnam as independent nations, some time in the late fifties, but
this was rejected as it would have required the USA to acknowledge a
Communist Country. Which, I fear, muddies the water even more so, as
it suggest that SovietHegomonists were at least willing to consider
the Diem Regime to be at least as Legitimate a Sovereign Government as
was their Puppet Regime in Hanoi. Which of course brings into the context
the question of whether the Soviet and PLA advisors up north were a part
of their Invasion of Vietnam, as the quid pro quo in all of this.

ps: to the lads of the 91st Loc. Rgt, and Lt. Hickson in particular.
Where ever you are Gordon, the Maze is behind us all now...