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 RiderOfTime View Post

    Please cite which part of the Geneva Accords said this? Being recognized by some random foreigners doesn't mean you are legitimate.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    The short answer is that the Geneva Conference and its participants (USA, USSR, China, DRV, France, RVN) recognised two states in Vietnam - the State of Vietnam under Bao Dai (Diem was PM and formed the RVN the next year) and the DRV under the Viet Minh.
    Please cite which part of the Geneva Accords said this? Being recognized by some random foreigners doesn't mean you are legitimate.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    ^ This is going to take some time to digest, but the effort is greatly appreciated.
    Thanks. Re reading it some stuff might not make as much sense as I'd hoped if you haven't done the background reading, but hopefully it hangs together. You might need to ask those questions.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    For decades now we have been regaled with tales of how the clever white man (Lansdale) tricked the gullible Asiatics into fleeing their homes for no reason. This story is typical of the frankly racist subtext of so much that Americans have written about the Vietnam War & especially non-Communist Vietnamese. They are dupes, fools, corrupt, weak, cowardly and incapable of making decisions for themselves, except when those decisions are to be corrupt, weak and cowardly. Even when accounts from those people themselves exist they are ignored in favour of a narrative that treats white people and Communists as the only ones capable of thinking and acting by themselves.

    Vietnamese Catholics in the North had already seen what happened to their bretheren when they opposed the Vieth Minh. Given the strong support Catholics had given to the French and the known antipathy of Communist to religion they had every reason to fear that they could lose anything from their religious freedom to their lives. It sdidn't take lone for the Communists to bare their teeth. They started settling scores as the French withdrew and used force, sometimes deadly, to prevent some people from fleeing simply reinforced the nature of the threat.

    The South was led by one of the most prominent Catholic families in the country and backed by the most powerful nation in the world - a far more welcoming prospect for many. It would have been widely known that the eldest member of that family had been buried alive by the Communists for daring to oppose them. The US Navy stepped in because the sheer scale of the movement was more than the French could cope with. Apparently this is bad. Can't work out why.

    Why do we speak of these people as cattle being herded by clever white men? Why do we treat the boasts of a pathological self-publicist such as Lansdale like gospel and refuse to consider that Catholics fleeing the North actually understood the nature of the people they were fleeing? Why do the actions of a million (and wishes of more who were unable to leave) get brushed aside while the words of a handful of white guys get privileged? It is impossible not to see it as anything but a cascading set of underlying political & ethnic prejudices. Understandable in the 50s, utterly absurd 70 years on.
    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...

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    ^ This is going to take some time to digest, but the effort is greatly appreciated.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    I'm just speechless that you'd issue a rant that does not castigate the United States.

    In Readers' Digest form, did the '54 Geneva Accords recognize the sovereignty of the RVN, and what conditions did the DRVN fail to satisfy. That should address the issue in this thread, at any rate.

    Guess now I'll owe you a 50-gal beer.
    Apologies for the delay Slick. I wanted to be sure I was giving you good info plus I got sidetracked a bit.

    The short answer is that the Geneva Conference and its participants (USA, USSR, China, DRV, France, RVN) recognised two states in Vietnam - the State of Vietnam under Bao Dai (Diem was PM and formed the RVN the next year) and the DRV under the Viet Minh. Both nominally had a claim over the whole country. Both had control over their respective areas until the proposed 1956 elections.

    Partition had actually been proposed by the DRV & championed by China. Initially France, the US & SVN had wanted 'leopard spots', where each would retreat to their strongholds during the ceasefire. The fear was that VM would basically set up a state. The French tune changed when a left wing government came to power promising an agreement and it became clear that neither French forces nor the Vietnamese national Army (nominally the army of the SVN) were in any state to fight should the VM press them.

    In the end the DRV conceded more territory than it wanted. In part this was because they too had problems with the state of their forces. There was also a fear, felt by Russia and China as well, that if things dragged on the US might intervene. This was a more serious possibility than is often understood. In fact, one of the reasons it didn't go ahead was that the US wanted allies. Britain had no interest and neither did Australia & New Zealand. The latter two were disproportionately important. In a wicked irony that very same conservative Australian government would volunteer to send troops to Vietnam in 1964 without the US even hinting that it wanted them.

    Partition was initially proposed for Laos & Cambodia - an ambit claim by the Viet Minh, who were still hoping to establish Communist governments in all three nations. Communist forces in those nations were in no position to assert any significant claims without the physical presence of VM forces and the VM and its allies were quite happy to ditch that proposal to get a deal done in Vietnam. Cambodia & Laos were to be neutral with no military bases and with no foreign troops unless requested by the government. The DRV started breaching by this by 1958.

    The DRV also breached clauses relating to leaving forces in territory controlled by the SVN, rearming its forces and free movement of people. I have outlined a bit of this in one of my replies on page one. The SVN also broke the clause on rearming, but it wasn't a signatory to the Accords.

    The big, contentious issue in a lot of discussions of this is the proposed 1956 elections. This is the entirety of what was said about that in the Accords:

    The Conference declares that, so far as Viet-Nam is concerned. the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity and territorial integrity, shall permit the Viet-Namese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot. In order to ensure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the Member States of the International Supervisory Commission, referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities. Consultations will be held on this subject between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from 20 July 1955 onwards.
    How much of that sounds realistic to you? Especially as the USA & SVN didn't sign the Accords and the international commission had proved useless at enforcing the Accords.

    The DRV assumed France would remain in the South at least long enough to pressure the SVN to hold the elections. It also assumed Russia & China would back it up. They did not. China was ambivalent about a unified Vietnam and had its own issues with the US to deal with. Russia also didn't want to irritate the Americans and wasn't that committed to the DRV getting what it wanted. Further, the DRV had its own problems. Even before the disastrous land reform program food was an issue. Then the DRV started jailing and murdering 'landlords', causing massive disruption to agriculture and society in the North. This crisis killed tens of thousands and dragged on into 1956 - the period when the terms of the election were supposed to be decided. In the South Diem removed Bao Dai and fought a brief civil war with a number of groups loosely aligned to French interests. With that won the US was in and France was out. France had bigger fish to fry in North Africa anyway.

    So, only one of the signatories to the Accords was really interested in holding elections and the state controlling half the nation wasn't one of them. Neither entity in Vietnam remotely resembled anything 'free and democratic'. Those who wanted a Communist Vietnam knew where to find it, as did those who did not. When July 1956 came and went without an election there was no great international protest. There was barely a word. the DRV knew it wasn't going to happen. It was yet to decide it would directly intervene in the South. That came three years later after a serious fight within the Politburo and victory by the Southern born Le Duan. There was noting inevitable about that. Another Vietnam War myth among so many.

    Hope that helps. Any and all questions welcome (can't promise good answers ).

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
    I seem to recall sources read that the Lansdale/CIA operation was a major operation and it was seem to me wrongful to play it down as a "fringe operation". Lansdale supposed said it was major and he openly bragged about the success in creating the stampede south using fear. Was it not part of the massive movement plus use of large amount of US govt./military assets (ships, planes, etc.) to coordinate it? Even much of the French Catholic Church got involved/cooperated in on a major scale with priests taking up the Virgin Mary and carrying her to South saying to the congregation "The Virgin Mary is going South follow her". Many falsehoods claimed the Party would commit genocide upon Catholics in the North. That never happen! In fact, there was a significant part of the Catholic community in North and South that supported the Revolution.
    For decades now we have been regaled with tales of how the clever white man (Lansdale) tricked the gullible Asiatics into fleeing their homes for no reason. This story is typical of the frankly racist subtext of so much that Americans have written about the Vietnam War & especially non-Communist Vietnamese. They are dupes, fools, corrupt, weak, cowardly and incapable of making decisions for themselves, except when those decisions are to be corrupt, weak and cowardly. Even when accounts from those people themselves exist they are ignored in favour of a narrative that treats white people and Communists as the only ones capable of thinking and acting by themselves.

    Vietnamese Catholics in the North had already seen what happened to their bretheren when they opposed the Vieth Minh. Given the strong support Catholics had given to the French and the known antipathy of Communist to religion they had every reason to fear that they could lose anything from their religious freedom to their lives. It sdidn't take lone for the Communists to bare their teeth. They started settling scores as the French withdrew and used force, sometimes deadly, to prevent some people from fleeing simply reinforced the nature of the threat.

    The South was led by one of the most prominent Catholic families in the country and backed by the most powerful nation in the world - a far more welcoming prospect for many. It would have been widely known that the eldest member of that family had been buried alive by the Communists for daring to oppose them. The US Navy stepped in because the sheer scale of the movement was more than the French could cope with. Apparently this is bad. Can't work out why.

    Why do we speak of these people as cattle being herded by clever white men? Why do we treat the boasts of a pathological self-publicist such as Lansdale like gospel and refuse to consider that Catholics fleeing the North actually understood the nature of the people they were fleeing? Why do the actions of a million (and wishes of more who were unable to leave) get brushed aside while the words of a handful of white guys get privileged? It is impossible not to see it as anything but a cascading set of underlying political & ethnic prejudices. Understandable in the 50s, utterly absurd 70 years on.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    True, M r. Archer...
    at the time, 1954, the world was 16 year from the Moscow show trials, 20 years since the great Soviet famine ,caused by botched collectivization - and Mao Tse Tung was beginning his rampages.

    It was an understandable judgement call....

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    I seem to recall sources read that the Lansdale/CIA operation was a major operation and it was seem to me wrongful to play it down as a "fringe operation". Lansdale supposed said it was major and he openly bragged about the success in creating the stampede south using fear. Was it not part of the massive movement plus use of large amount of US govt./military assets (ships, planes, etc.) to coordinate it? Even much of the French Catholic Church got involved/cooperated in on a major scale with priests taking up the Virgin Mary and carrying her to South saying to the congregation "The Virgin Mary is going South follow her". Many falsehoods claimed the Party would commit genocide upon Catholics in the North. That never happen! In fact, there was a significant part of the Catholic community in North and South that supported the Revolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post
    Thanks
    Col. Lansdale's group was at best fringe operation.
    R. OfT, people flee en mass to dodge a clear and present danger, not because of a false flag operation. I appreciate your patriotism.


    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    WADR, M r. Archer I must disagree. NVN was in the middle of two purges, the landlords - and the communist party.
    over 815000 refugees fles south on ships and more would have followed if the routes had not been sealed.

    'purging the unfaithful ' occurred periodically in the last century among Communist regimes. A fair election wasn't possible- North or South -in 195's Vietnam.
    Speaking of the fleeing:

    At the same time, Lansdale orchestrated a series of psychological and covert operations in North Vietnam, believing that while the United States did all it could to stabilize the South, it could also undermine Ho in the North. These operations included destroying government printing presses, encouraging emigration, recruiting "stay-behind" teams, burying weapons caches, attempting to close the port of Haiphong, contaminating petroleum supplies, and sabotaging rail and bus lines. A number of CIA-sponsored paramilitary groups infltrated the North under the direction of CIA's Lucien Conein.

    While these covert operations had mixed results, one effort in 1954 and 1955, a propaganda campaign known as Operation Exodus, ultimately convinced 1.25 million North Vietnamese Catholics to emigrate to the south. With the aid of the US Navy's 7th Fleet and CIA proprietary airlines, hordes of terror-stricken evacuees fled as news cameras captured dramatic footage that would be shown worldwide. The campaign's slogan, "God has Gone South," reverberated around the world and blackened Ho's hitherto untarnished public reputation in the world.
    Studies in Intelligence: CIA and the Wars in Southeast Asia

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by Crackshot View Post

    I've often heard the "majority of Vietnamese supported HCM" bandied around, I'd be interested in your sources for that claim as I haven't researched it much myself.

    Check #25.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
    Is the Dog strong enough to keep his Bone????
    'Until he finds a safe place to bury it' (Pink Floyd)
    my reasoning Mr. Archer,comes from -Arthur Koestler "
    "What started as the healers knife ended up as the Moscow Purges"

    BTW, my reasoning says you can call it weak, just don't call it late for lunch.,

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
    Is the Dog strong enough to keep his Bone????
    not without "teeth"

    Leave a comment:


  • Crackshot
    replied
    Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
    Is the Dog strong enough to keep his Bone????
    ?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X