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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    Is the Dog strong enough to keep his Bone????

    Leave a comment:


  • Crackshot
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crackshot
    replied
    Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
    As if an independent Nation had no right to control its border or close it in warlike condition and threats from outside. This appears nonsensical.
    I'm curious, do you think the RVN had this right too?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    Mr marktwain I disagree at several levels on your disagreement as I find your position weak. If in fact all agree to your point of "two purges" happening, it fails to prove that such a limited in area and scope happenings would have any significant bearing on the said national election. The landlords were a small number in population and had the early right to leave for the French controlled South. But that portion (of an already small number stayed as it was their right allowed) that did stay was often facing criminal prosecutions for suppose crimes committed during the War in collaboration with the French. These trials/hearings were very popular with a large portion of the Vietnamese people who composed the most of the population who looked forward to the free elections. The purges of a limited numbers hardly effects many and most purges were many times simply a removal of a membership card and not a serious rebuke. Those membership were handed off too liberally due the War which lead to a cut back after the War. As far as your concern over the population mass movement you seem confused. You make note of that part of the population who were allowed that right under the Accords to move South (which happen as you said) but then you turn around at same time and claim a later portion of population were brutally oppressed and not allowed to move South. As if an independent Nation had no right to control its border or close it in warlike condition and threats from outside. This appears nonsensical.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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


    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GRA
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Archer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X