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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    The link is in Post #24 above, try using it there. These guys are misquoting and leaving stuff out. I was suspicious about the quote coming from Eisenhower. If a guy about to be president says this and two years later has already gone down a different path something is not right.

    Pruitt
    Why is it hard to understand?
    • Eisenhower knew that the Vietnamese majority supported Ho Chi Minh.
    • Since communism was bad, the will of Vietnamese majority was bad.
    • Since Diem was against the will of the Vietnamese, Diem was good.
    • So Eisenhower supported Diem.

    -> That was the POV of the US for you.

    Comment


    • #32
      You have a lot to learn about the History of the Republican Party in the US. Do a search on Anna Chennault, and Joe McCarthy. Eisenhower was very careful NOT to be seen supporting a Communist movement. For humor you might search in Richard Milhous Nixon during these times.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
        You have a lot to learn about the History of the Republican Party in the US. Do a search on Anna Chennault, and Joe McCarthy. Eisenhower was very careful NOT to be seen supporting a Communist movement. For humor you might search in Richard Milhous Nixon during these times.

        Pruitt
        I didn't deny that. What I was saying is: "Eisenhower was very careful NOT to be seen supporting a Communist movement" even if that would cause the suffering of the Vietnamese.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          What Vietnam did do is keep Malaysia, Singapore, and Indochina from becoming Communist. Both Malaysia and Indochina had active Communist insurgencies going at the same time as Vietnam. Both failed because neither the Soviets or Chinese had the means to support these while trying to keep North Vietnam from collapsing economically from the war it was engaged in. The Soviets in particular, and the Chinese to a lessor extent, were putting all their aid into winning in Vietnam and that starved and eventually led to the failure of insurgencies elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
          What happened in Vietnam had next to no impact on Malaya, where the 'Emergency' was in steep decline by the end of 1955 and over by 1960. There was no way for the USSR or China to significantly impact the conflict even if they had the resources and the motivation. Local factors, not least the ethnicity of the Communists and the support of the overwhelming majority of the populace for the British, ultimately doomed the insurgency.

          Such Communists as remained active in Malaysia post independence were nuisance value at best. In fact, some of them even allied themselves with the Malaysian government against Indonesia when Suharto started his massacre of Communists in 1965-66.

          There wasn't really anything worthy of the term 'insurgency' in Singapore pre or post independence. A few attacks, but not much more.

          There was a Communist revolt in Brunei. it was comprehensively defeated inside a year, though it did influence the Sultan not to join Malaysia (a wise decision in hindsight).

          Oh, and last time I checked Indochina was still ruled by Communists or one sort or another, so not sure why you'd bring that up.
          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

          Comment


          • #35
            and Indochina had active Communist insurgencies going at the same time as Vietnam.
            WHAT GOOBLY GOOK

            Vietnam is in Indochina

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

              WHAT GOOBLY GOOK

              Vietnam is in Indochina

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina
              Indo- NESIA....
              Indo-NESIA....

              The insurgency in Malaya:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

              And in Indonesia

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...ncy_in_Sarawak

              Not to mention the PI

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukbalahap_Rebellion

              All failed because Communist China and the Soviet Union had nothing to support them with due to Vietnam.

              Most of Southeast Asia stayed out of the Communist sphere due to Vietnam.

              Comment


              • #37
                That all doesn't change the fact that you misplace Vietnam and Indo-China. Man up for once.

                Gee ___ ___Vietnam fell to the commies. Most of the rest did not. Win or lose Vietnam hardly influenced a darn thing. If it did why didn't other country's fall to the commies.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

                  I didn't deny that. What I was saying is: "Eisenhower was very careful NOT to be seen supporting a Communist movement" even if that would cause the suffering of the Vietnamese.
                  IIRC, the estimate was 60per cent would have supported Ho chi M inh in 1959.However, the 40 per cent were passionately, often violently opposed .They deserved a separated state .

                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I support the notion that RiderOfTime is not a Troll. It appears to me, a mere novice in Vietnam War time period, that his postings are well grounded in current historical research in this historical period of discussion.

                    In other matters, I would like to point out that the Eisenhower govt. did pour mountains of war supplies and money into Vietnam not for the direct support of the interest of the Vietnamese People but instead for the French Empire of Indochina. Yes I mean the French colonial masters overlords of the Vietnamese People. Once it was notice that the French wanted out of their Vietnam colony in order to defend their North Africa colony the Eisenhower govt. began the formation of the Diem Catholic authoritarian overlordship to rule over the Vietnamese People. National fair elections were denied the Vietnamese People due to the US power elites knowing fully well that Ho would win the Geneva Accords election. Why would the insurgency wish to cheat in the said election fully knowing you were to win without having to cheat? Initially, the US and Diem policy was to reconquer the North making Vietnam whole again but the southern insurgency proved too strong leading to the introduction of US ground combat troops in 1965.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      What Vietnam did do is keep Malaysia, Singapore, and Indochina from becoming Communist. Both Malaysia and Indochina had active Communist insurgencies going at the same time as Vietnam. Both failed because neither the Soviets or Chinese had the means to support these while trying to keep North Vietnam from collapsing economically from the war it was engaged in. The Soviets in particular, and the Chinese to a lessor extent, were putting all their aid into winning in Vietnam and that starved and eventually led to the failure of insurgencies elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
                      IMHO it also eventually led to the failure of the Soviet system of communism and the Eastern bloc, The end of Vietnam for us was actually the beginning of the end for Russian and their Eastern Euro allies.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by GRA View Post

                        IMHO it also eventually led to the failure of the Soviet system of communism and the Eastern bloc, The end of Vietnam for us was actually the beginning of the end for Russian and their Eastern Euro allies.
                        One thing it did do was prove, once again, that Communist equipped, trained, and led forces only worked when you couldn't run out of manpower.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                          IIRC, the estimate was 60per cent would have supported Ho chi M inh in 1959.However, the 40 per cent were passionately, often violently opposed .They deserved a separated state .
                          It was 80%, not 60%. And yes, the minority deserved a separated state but outside of Vietnam.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            In 1955, 80PC would have voted for HCM over Bao Dai, a dissolute playboy ready to bolt for the Riveria


                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              First of all I don't believe the original poster is a "troll". He just adheres to a different view. As a veteran of that damn war I have looked at thousands of views, opinions and "armchair history" as I call it. Time only has one line it follows. what has happened cannot be changed. "What if" scenarios are just that no matter how you may try to justify a view......it is conjecture. John stated that no countries would have gone communist Vietnam war or not. He may be right. we will never know for sure. I cling to the view that without our making a stand in Vietnam losing or not that it showed Russia and China that even though we did not have an iron will to continue the fight there forever,we showed them we would not simply remain isolationist in these matters.
                              Did the US enter into the conflict simply to prevent north Vietnam to have an election? Perhaps as a small part of the large puzzle. No one can simply pick one issue or reason for that war. It is possibly one of the most confusing and contentious wars to have ever been fought. I believe most of the common people and soldiers who fought/supported that war at a time when it looked as if communism would swallow the world had mostly good intentions for Vietnam. I know that is how I felt. So now 40-50 years later after all they secret behind the doors intel is becoming known, sure we can say it was ill-advised at best. I'm hoping for an afterlife if for no other reason to have the opportunity to spend eternity choking Lyndon Johnson and Nixon...
                              Remember......2 million people fled Vietnam and the communists between 1975 and 1995.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                There seems to be some confusion and maybe deliberate obfuscation over what was the nature of the Geneva Accords expected national election. The Great Powers involved and the Vietnamese had agreed to an expected peaceful cooperative election. The Election was to be supervised by an international commission of third party nations (from outside Vietnam) which did form and were active on the ground prepared to commence. The US govt. did not officially sign on to the said Accords with its elections but the US govt. did pledge in a letter of commitment not to interfere with the Accords conditions and Elections. There was not real powerful enforcement to cause these elections but only somewhat of a international public opinion censure if parties involved behaved improperly or hostile way to harm the Accords and elections. It is wrong to imply that the NVN were an aggressive enforcer and instead they were trying to play the role of an official participate in an international agreement.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X