15 ms·

Have you considered that Laos is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location? For one, it's the most heavily bombed nation in the world

by esturk 3y ago

Have you considered that Laos is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location? For one, it's the most heavily bombed nation in the world per capita (done by America during the Vietnam War)? [1] It isn't easy to develop a country that is so severely set back by war. Especially without outside help and/or investment. Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos

fnordpiglet 3y ago
That’s one of their problems. But if you’ve visited the real problems are very apparent, and they start with their form of highly corrupt communism and hostility to the outside world. It’s not getting the attention from the west because the government is highly insular. Being the most efficient route to China and between Vietnam and Thailand makes it very strategically important, and China is probably more responsible for the state of Laos than anywhere else. It’s very much in their interest the west has no toe hold there, and that it stay effectively a vassal state dependent on their patronage.
- jimkleiber 3y ago
  Just one thing to note, I'm sure among many: if I lived in a place they got bombed so much by outsiders, I'd probably become insular and hostile to outsiders. Not saying I think they should stay that way, but maybe just adding one perspective on why they might feel that way.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners. I spent most my time around Paxe which is very rural, but also around the most intense American involvement as well. It may be different further north near the capital but there was a lot less bombing and special forces counter insurgency. I think, while not justifying anything, it’s really important to note that the Chinese and north Vietnamese had invaded Laos and were actively destabilizing the government and led to its collapse, as well as invited the American bombing campaigns that were focused on north Vietnamese captured territories. It’s easy to lay the blame on the US, but it’s not like China wasn’t directly responsible for drawing Laos into that position by force through the north Vietnamese proxy. The US tried to keep the central government of Laos from collapsing while China actively subverted it and installed the government they have today. Prior to French colonialism China pillaged Laos ransacking and razing their cities repeatedly to the point of causing a significant labor shortage in Laos. France tried to solve this through forced migrations from Vietnam to Laos to repopulate the country, leading to further instability. So - it’s not just the bombing, it’s a major confluence of really shitty behavior by a lot of people over Laos primarily because of its strategic importance, but if I were to lay blame on an outsider for their problems, I would place it entirely on China. Laos has been a pawn in chinas ambition for hundreds of years and it has it under complete control and subjugation at this point in time. Finally I would note almost all the bombing happened in very sparsely populated areas. It’s not like Europe or Japan where it was a wholesale bombing of major population centers. There were no dresdens, no nagasakis, fire bombings of Tokyo - all of which happened to countries that have embraced the world outside them.
    - jimkleiber 3y ago
      I really appreciate you writing this and giving me not context to what happened—thank you.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Thank you for your experience and perspective > In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners. We need to be cognizant that often they have little choice. We have all the power and money. The economic disparities, as I'm sure you noticed, are hard to concieve without witnessing them.
      - fnordpiglet 3y ago
        It wasn’t about money or power. They were just extremely friendly people. In fact when I would get over charged for things the Laotian people would grow irate with the business operator because it was unfair.
WalterBright 3y ago
Japan and Germany were both bombed flat in WW2. Their recovery was based on turning to free markets.
- iamerroragent 3y ago
  They were both administrated by the U.S./Western powers for quite some time were they not? I'm pretty damn sure they weren't exactly given a choice.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive. Yes, the US administered Japan for a while, and along with the USSR, GB and F administered Germany. I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn. The more recent attempts by the US to administer Iraq and Afghanistan were total failures. It would be interesting to see why those failed and the Japanese/German occupations were successful. (Of course I know that the USSR didn't turn over the Soviet sector until 1989.)
    - morsch 3y ago
      Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing, there was a lot of infrastructure remaining. Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact. The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered. [1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm
jahewson 3y ago
Every place is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location.
rayiner 3y ago
> Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West. This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.
- esturk 3y ago
  Apparently, you disregarded the entire first part of my point which was that they were bombed so heavily that set them back decades. They need outside investment to jump start development. Just like Japan and Germany did after WW2. You speak as if Thailand and Vietnam didn't hold important geopolitical values that the West and China want to exploit which makes them attractive to investments. Those same countries still need to court outside investments to build out infrastructure and industries like recent efforts to move manufacturing to southeast Asia.
  - gedy 3y ago
    I think we need to quit blaming the utter failure of communist systems and corruption on "American bombs" 50 years ago.
    - pr0zac 3y ago
      I'm not exactly a fan of authoritarian communism but the point you're trying to make here fails considering Vietnam, one of the countries used as a successful example, has the exact same governing system as Laos. Also the point made that the main difference between which countries recover and which don't post-war is whether they receive economic investment doesn't seem to be relevant to communism or who exactly did the previous bombing at all.
    - wolverine876 3y ago

by esturk 3y ago

fnordpiglet 3y ago

That’s one of their problems. But if you’ve visited the real problems are very apparent, and they start with their form of highly corrupt communism and hostility to the outside world. It’s not getting the attention from the west because the government is highly insular. Being the most efficient route to China and between Vietnam and Thailand makes it very strategically important, and China is probably more responsible for the state of Laos than anywhere else. It’s very much in their interest the west has no toe hold there, and that it stay effectively a vassal state dependent on their patronage.

jimkleiber 3y ago
Just one thing to note, I'm sure among many: if I lived in a place they got bombed so much by outsiders, I'd probably become insular and hostile to outsiders. Not saying I think they should stay that way, but maybe just adding one perspective on why they might feel that way.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners. I spent most my time around Paxe which is very rural, but also around the most intense American involvement as well. It may be different further north near the capital but there was a lot less bombing and special forces counter insurgency. I think, while not justifying anything, it’s really important to note that the Chinese and north Vietnamese had invaded Laos and were actively destabilizing the government and led to its collapse, as well as invited the American bombing campaigns that were focused on north Vietnamese captured territories. It’s easy to lay the blame on the US, but it’s not like China wasn’t directly responsible for drawing Laos into that position by force through the north Vietnamese proxy. The US tried to keep the central government of Laos from collapsing while China actively subverted it and installed the government they have today. Prior to French colonialism China pillaged Laos ransacking and razing their cities repeatedly to the point of causing a significant labor shortage in Laos. France tried to solve this through forced migrations from Vietnam to Laos to repopulate the country, leading to further instability. So - it’s not just the bombing, it’s a major confluence of really shitty behavior by a lot of people over Laos primarily because of its strategic importance, but if I were to lay blame on an outsider for their problems, I would place it entirely on China. Laos has been a pawn in chinas ambition for hundreds of years and it has it under complete control and subjugation at this point in time. Finally I would note almost all the bombing happened in very sparsely populated areas. It’s not like Europe or Japan where it was a wholesale bombing of major population centers. There were no dresdens, no nagasakis, fire bombings of Tokyo - all of which happened to countries that have embraced the world outside them.
  - jimkleiber 3y ago
    I really appreciate you writing this and giving me not context to what happened—thank you.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Thank you for your experience and perspective > In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners. We need to be cognizant that often they have little choice. We have all the power and money. The economic disparities, as I'm sure you noticed, are hard to concieve without witnessing them.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      It wasn’t about money or power. They were just extremely friendly people. In fact when I would get over charged for things the Laotian people would grow irate with the business operator because it was unfair.

WalterBright 3y ago

Japan and Germany were both bombed flat in WW2. Their recovery was based on turning to free markets.

iamerroragent 3y ago
They were both administrated by the U.S./Western powers for quite some time were they not? I'm pretty damn sure they weren't exactly given a choice.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive. Yes, the US administered Japan for a while, and along with the USSR, GB and F administered Germany. I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn. The more recent attempts by the US to administer Iraq and Afghanistan were total failures. It would be interesting to see why those failed and the Japanese/German occupations were successful. (Of course I know that the USSR didn't turn over the Soviet sector until 1989.)
  - morsch 3y ago
    Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing, there was a lot of infrastructure remaining. Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact. The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered. [1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm

jahewson 3y ago

Every place is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location.

rayiner 3y ago

> Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West. This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.

esturk 3y ago
Apparently, you disregarded the entire first part of my point which was that they were bombed so heavily that set them back decades. They need outside investment to jump start development. Just like Japan and Germany did after WW2. You speak as if Thailand and Vietnam didn't hold important geopolitical values that the West and China want to exploit which makes them attractive to investments. Those same countries still need to court outside investments to build out infrastructure and industries like recent efforts to move manufacturing to southeast Asia.
- gedy 3y ago
  I think we need to quit blaming the utter failure of communist systems and corruption on "American bombs" 50 years ago.
  - pr0zac 3y ago
    I'm not exactly a fan of authoritarian communism but the point you're trying to make here fails considering Vietnam, one of the countries used as a successful example, has the exact same governing system as Laos. Also the point made that the main difference between which countries recover and which don't post-war is whether they receive economic investment doesn't seem to be relevant to communism or who exactly did the previous bombing at all.
  - wolverine876 3y ago