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

  • #61
    ^ This is going to take some time to digest, but the effort is greatly appreciated.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #62
      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.
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • #63
        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.
        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


        • #64
          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.

          Comment


          • #65
            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.
            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


            • #66
              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.

              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


              • #67
                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?

                Comment


                • #68
                  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, 02:51.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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, 12:35.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Like I said, 100% troll spewing propaganda. Anyone who thinks otherwise can deal with him/her. I'm sticking to the adults.
                      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


                      • #71
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          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.
                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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/

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                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, 22:38.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X