Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Vietnam War to prevent North Vietnam from enforcing the 1954 Geneva Accords?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
    Here's some information from the recommended book: EMBERS OF WAR by FREDRIK LOGEVALL. Here we find a serious breach of the Accords by the State of Vietnam (Diem/CIA regime) and I believe it more serious than mere rearmament violation. Here a tease from the book:

    "The Saigon premier (Diem) also launched a campaign of repression, under the slogan "Denounce the Communists,' which summoned the population into mass meetings to denounce Viet Minh members and sympathizers; the South Vietnamese army and police arrested thousands of suspected subversives and sent them to detention camps. The regime escalated the effort in January 1956 by issuing Ordinance No. 6, which gave officials almost unlimited powers in combating political opponents. Henceforth, the edict read, anyone considered a danger "to the defense of the state and public order" was to be thrown in jail or placed under house arrest until "order and security" had been achieved however deep into the future that might be. Hundreds of executions occurred, some of them by beheading or disembowelment. The harsh methods were not without effect. Gradually, through1956 and 1957, clandestine Viet Minh organizations in the south were decimated."
    I'll get to your longer post later, but this one is easy - what is the specific breach of the Geneva Accords committed by the State of Vietnam & Republic of Vietnam in this instance? Be very specific. In your zeal to denounce the SVN/RVN you have reminded us that the DRV was in breach of the Accords by leaving VM cadre in the south. The Accords were explicit on this point. There were supposed to be no forces left behind for the SVN/RVN to 'decimate'. The DRV flagrantly breached that condition as well as others.

    Of course, what you describe here was simply a smaller version of what the DRV did when it took over, except there were no 'hidden cadre' for them to persecute. They focused on 'landlords' and others who had a different view of the future of Vietnam from theirs.

    So, if there was an SVN/RVN breach of Accords they had not assented to then there is also a breach of accords by the DRV, which had signed them. Again, this argues the case for not holding the 1956 elections. The DRV broke the Accords repeatedly, flagrantly with premeditation and from the moment they were signed. To somehow argue that nations that had never accepted the Accords should be bound by them when the nation to whom they were most significant did not is absurd.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    Here's some information from the recommended book: EMBERS OF WAR by FREDRIK LOGEVALL. Here we find a serious breach of the Accords by the State of Vietnam (Diem/CIA regime) and I believe it more serious than mere rearmament violation. Here a tease from the book:

    "The Saigon premier (Diem) also launched a campaign of repression, under the slogan "Denounce the Communists,' which summoned the population into mass meetings to denounce Viet Minh members and sympathizers; the South Vietnamese army and police arrested thousands of suspected subversives and sent them to detention camps. The regime escalated the effort in January 1956 by issuing Ordinance No. 6, which gave officials almost unlimited powers in combating political opponents. Henceforth, the edict read, anyone considered a danger "to the defense of the state and public order" was to be thrown in jail or placed under house arrest until "order and security" had been achieved however deep into the future that might be. Hundreds of executions occurred, some of them by beheading or disembowelment. The harsh methods were not without effect. Gradually, through1956 and 1957, clandestine Viet Minh organizations in the south were decimated."

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    Please allow some modification to BF69 Post #60. Which is somewhat of a nice post. But I want to make it more historical and better FOR BF69.

    Again the US was not one of the "participants" and the list provided had some factual errors. Britain is not listed, and it was Britain who had a major impact in the success of the Accords. The US govt. was a claimed observer, but actually a troublemaker, and conducted itself shamefully. France was the only representative for those Vietnamese in the southern French Empire/Union enclave. One should not cited South Vietnam, as it did not exist yet, as it would be declared later by Diem, after Diem's coup to remove Bao Dai.

    It was said the overarching fear was that the VM "would set up a state". The VM had already set up a state, and one could say it was recognized, because it was a major participate in the treaty talks. That being a major reason for the US govt. not being a participate. Yes Folks that's right the US govt. was very upset over the existence of the only independent and sovereign state (DRV/North) of the Vietnamese people at these talks over the future of the Vietnamese People.

    It keeps being said South Vietnam never signed the Accords and therefore its breaching of the Accords were not illegal. South Vietnam only breaching cited is rearming. Once again, South Vietnam did not sign because their colonial masters/French signed for them and because South Vietnam has not yet being formed by Diem Regime. Diem/CIA did much more breaching than only rearming. Its greatest breaching was the whole sale slaughter/imprisonment of the Left and other opponents of Diem in the South.

    It was misleading and wrong to claim that the prosecution of the Landlords in the North caused massive disruption to agriculture and society. The truth history of food shortage in the North goes back to the Japanese, French, and yes even the Landlords mismanagement. I have read where one half of peasants families in the North gained farm land from the land distribution took from the monopolistic Landlords and it was this that resolved the long term food shortages. Late collective program was a later issue.

    Finally it is simple obfuscation to claim wrongly that "only one signatories (DRV/North) to the Accords was really interested in holding the elections.)

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post

    oh no. not for now. Explains a lot about where your coming from though...……...
    A simple read of the Pentagon Papers shows that there were 5,480 personnel of that "Vietnamese National Army" presented at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, on the French side, accounted for 36.2% of the enemy army. So we can say that the army you mentioned contributed VERY VERY VERY BADLY, even NEGATIVELY to the war of national liberation against France in Vietnam.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    Even South Vietnamese people in 1955 openly claimed that he was a puppet selling his country:


    https://history.state.gov/historical...955-57v01/d278



    Yes, they were the traitors who fought for the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu against their compatriots. Anything else?
    Chao_co_Phap.jpg
    oh no. not for now. Explains a lot about where your coming from though...……...

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    [/B]

    while I don't believe that you are trolling, you are 'bending history." the Emperor Bao Dai refused to be a puppet emperor under the Japanese in 1945.

    A lot of the South Vietnamese were interested in the Indochina federation.
    Even South Vietnamese people in 1955 openly claimed that he was a puppet selling his country:

    The number and variety of anti-Bao Dai and pro-Diem leaflets and posters was virtually limitless. A random sampling of the slogans they contained follows: 1) Beware of the evil king Bao Dai’s preference for gambling, women, wine, milk and butter. Those who vote for him betray their country. 2) Bao Dai, puppet king selling his country. 3) To depose Bao Dai is to save Vietnam. 4) Bao Dai, master keeper of gambling dens and brothels. 5) Bao Dai, head traitor.
    https://history.state.gov/historical...955-57v01/d278


    Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post

    Concerning your point number 5;
    Have you ever heard of this military force?https://www.revolvy.com/page/Vietnamese-National-Army
    Yes, they were the traitors who fought for the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu against their compatriots. Anything else?
    Chao_co_Phap.jpg
    Last edited by RiderOfTime; 29 Nov 18, 23:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    another side of "uncle Ho" from a Vietnamese...……...I always wondered why the South Vietnamese and their viewpoints are almost always ignored.....

    https://truehochiminh.wordpress.com/...nam-1946-1954/

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post
    1. "The SVN and VNA were one of the elements of the French Union forces" Didn't this mean they were puppet collaborators for France, thus, inherently illegitimate?
    2. "The SVN was represented at the Conference and recognised by ALL the participants". Like I said, random foreigners. What right did they have to recognized the SVN, especially when you admitted that SVN was a puppet of France?
    3. "The SVN is specifically mentioned in the Final Declaration". The Final Declaration merely recorded the fact that SVN physically presented at the Conference. It didn't grant the SVN right to rule the South, nor it declared the renounce of the DRV's sovereignty over the South (which was granted by the Emperor of Vietnam in 1945, btw).
    4. The ultimate goal of the Accords was to have an independent, unified Vietnam after France's withdrawal. All other points were trivial issues and their breaches, if any, didn't matter. If the French, one of 2 parties involved, didn't complain, nobody else could.
    5. A simple question: It was the DRV who defeated France to liberate Vietnam. As the SVN contributed NOTHING in that victory and liberation, what right did they have to demand the rulership in the South?
    Concerning your point number 5;
    Have you ever heard of this military force?https://www.revolvy.com/page/Vietnamese-National-Army

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    Do I have to remind you that France at that time was an invader and an enemy of Vietnamese people while USSR and China weren't not? Furthermore, if the Accords was enforced properly, Vietnam would have been unified and at peace.

    Of course, the DRV could have rejected the Accords and continued to wage war until all Frenchmen and South Vietnamese traitors killed.

    Does that matter? The Emperor transferred his power to the DRV, so he became a normal civilian. What he did after that (like, betray his nation to the French in 1949) doesn't matter.

    So Mr. BF69 claimed that the Accords recognized the legitimacy of the SVN, but the SVN themselves rejected the Accords, so didn't that mean the SVN reject their own proof of existence?

    PS: And another question you need to ask: The Accords forced the French out and gave Vietnam peace and indepedence. Why did the SVN reject that? Did they want the French remain? Did they not want peace and independence for Vietnam?


    while I don't believe that you are trolling, you are 'bending history." the Emperor Bao Dai refused to be a puppet emperor under the Japanese in 1945.

    A lot of the South Vietnamese were interested in the Indochina federation.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    Like I said, 100% troll spewing propaganda. Anyone who thinks otherwise can deal with him/her. I'm sticking to the adults.
    Suit yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Like I said, 100% troll spewing propaganda. Anyone who thinks otherwise can deal with him/her. I'm sticking to the adults.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by Queensland View Post
    Couple of points:



    There is a pretty blatant double standard here - the SVN is a puppet of the French and therefore illegitimate, yet there's a strong case that it was the USSR and PRC that pressured the DRV into accepting partition. So according to you, the DRV is also a puppet of those two countries, no?
    Do I have to remind you that France at that time was an invader and an enemy of Vietnamese people while USSR and China weren't not? Furthermore, if the Accords was enforced properly, Vietnam would have been unified and at peace.

    Of course, the DRV could have rejected the Accords and continued to wage war until all Frenchmen and South Vietnamese traitors killed.
    Originally posted by Queensland View Post
    Bit disingenuous to bring this up without mentioning the same Emperor was the Chief of State of the SVN, no? Also incredibly misleading is not mentioning that the reason the SVN wasn't mentioned in the final declaration may have something to do with them rejecting it - even though France was a signatory. So much for an unthinking puppet regime.
    Does that matter? The Emperor transferred his power to the DRV, so he became a normal civilian. What he did after that (like, betray his nation to the French in 1949) doesn't matter.

    So Mr. BF69 claimed that the Accords recognized the legitimacy of the SVN, but the SVN themselves rejected the Accords, so didn't that mean the SVN reject their own proof of existence?

    PS: And another question you need to ask: The Accords forced the French out and gave Vietnam peace and indepedence. Why did the SVN reject that? Did they want the French remain? Did they not want peace and independence for Vietnam?
    Last edited by RiderOfTime; 29 Nov 18, 13:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • Queensland
    replied
    Couple of points:

    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post
    The SVN was represented at the Conference and recognised by ALL the participants". Like I said, random foreigners. What right did they have to recognized the SVN, especially when you admitted that SVN was a puppet of France?
    There is a pretty blatant double standard here - the SVN is a puppet of the French and therefore illegitimate, yet there's a strong case that it was the USSR and PRC that pressured the DRV into accepting partition. So according to you, the DRV is also a puppet of those two countries, no?


    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post
    The SVN is specifically mentioned in the Final Declaration". The Final Declaration merely recorded the fact that SVN physically presented at the Conference. It didn't grant the SVN right to rule the South, nor it declared the renounce of the DRV's sovereignty over the South (which was granted by the Emperor of Vietnam in 1945, btw).
    Bit disingenuous to bring this up without mentioning the same Emperor was the Chief of State of the SVN, no? Also incredibly misleading is not mentioning that the reason the SVN wasn't mentioned in the final declaration may have something to do with them rejecting it - even though France was a signatory. So much for an unthinking puppet regime.
    Last edited by Queensland; 29 Nov 18, 03:51.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    Still trolling I see.

    The SVN was represented at the Conference and recognised by ALL the participants as an entity as legitimate as the DRV. The SVN and VNA were one of the elements of the French Union forces who are mentioned repeatedly in the Accords. The SVN is specifically mentioned in the Final Declaration to which the DRV assented, and is thus recognised.

    As you have repeatedly avoided responding to my questions and continue to communicate in one line posts (which at least take up less space than propaganda maps) you have all the responses you will get from me. Respond in detail to my earlier posts, in particular the ones relating to repeated DRV breaches of the Accords they were apparently supposed to 'enforce' (still waiting for an explanation of that too).

    Apparently some people on this thread think you have a contribution to make. They can waste time on you.
    1. "The SVN and VNA were one of the elements of the French Union forces" Didn't this mean they were puppet collaborators for France, thus, inherently illegitimate?
    2. "The SVN was represented at the Conference and recognised by ALL the participants". Like I said, random foreigners. What right did they have to recognized the SVN, especially when you admitted that SVN was a puppet of France?
    3. "The SVN is specifically mentioned in the Final Declaration". The Final Declaration merely recorded the fact that SVN physically presented at the Conference. It didn't grant the SVN right to rule the South, nor it declared the renounce of the DRV's sovereignty over the South (which was granted by the Emperor of Vietnam in 1945, btw).
    4. The ultimate goal of the Accords was to have an independent, unified Vietnam after France's withdrawal. All other points were trivial issues and their breaches, if any, didn't matter. If the French, one of 2 parties involved, didn't complain, nobody else could.
    5. A simple question: It was the DRV who defeated France to liberate Vietnam. As the SVN contributed NOTHING in that victory and liberation, what right did they have to demand the rulership in the South?

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    Very well done Pair of posts.
    there is an element of the far left( I'm probably center left) in the Western world which longs for 'populist Armageddon'- a we vs. they clearing of the landscape...
    I tend to think of it more in terms of a wilful blindness cause in part by a romanticizing of 'people's revolution'. There is a long history of people across the spectrum seeing what they choose to see when it comes to authoritarian regimes that they like. It is only necessary to see the way 'freedom loving' American conservatives get hot and heavy for Putin to understand that.

    Given that Vietnam was bracketed by China's 'cultural revolution' which we now know buried over 20 million Chinese, and Pol Pots's Khmer Rouge, which moonscaped Cambodia, there is an argument that the publicity of the Boatlifts actually restrained the DVN . After 1960, Ho chi Minh gradually became a 'beloved figurehead', while a more logical Communism evolved in North Vietnam.
    I think you might mean the 'Great Leap Forward', though that didn't begin until 1958. The GPCR started in 1966. However, by 1955 it was well known that there had been widespread purges and mass murder in China post-revolution. At least some of what had happened under Stalin was also known. By the mid-50s Communism already had a well founded reputation for brutality and antipathy to religion.

    However, Catholics in Vietnam who were not supportive of the Viet Minh didn't need to know about that because they had already seen how the VM treated their adversaries. People who point out that there weren't massacres in Vietnam on the scale of Russia, China or Cambodia (there were also proportionately large mass murders in Laos post 1975) and therefore claim fears that there might be were silly fantasies are being disingenuous in the extreme. There were mass murders in Vietnam in the 50s, just not as big as some others. Denying that opponents & potential opponents of the VM had no reason to flee is ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X