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

  • Half Pint John
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    P,that liink doesn't open.WhatOur new correspondent misses is that theState serves it's' citizens. Not the opposite.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    This shows the Eisenhower quote being used was inaccurate. There were other factors that prevented an election in 1956, like the Soviets being opposed to a supervised "free" election, and The VM were purging the landowning class.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    I sincerely hope that is one of your 'rimshots' slick.
    Don't you know when you're having the pi$$ taken? Aren't Aussies supposed to be kings of sarcasm? (Proudest moment of my life was when one of your compatriots said that I was too sarcastic for his tastes. )

    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    While I dislike your nation's political right
    I suspect that that's because you've not encountered our political left.

    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    (though I am rather fond of some of its individual members)
    As we all are of you.

    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    I am extremely fond of your nation as a whole.
    And naturally I feel the same way about . . . . where it you're from again?

    Rimshot

    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    OK, I'll try to whip something up, though it might be a bit weightier than the RD version.
    Much obliged, sir.

    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    I am hoping to visit your fair nation in 2020 and Brooklyn is definitely on my itinerary, so I may hold you to that.
    Just bear in mind that quantity tends to cut into quality. And public urination is now legal. Apart from that, you'll be fine.

    Originally posted by BF69 View Post
    Oh, and if you are after a Socialist for me to play against your Joe McCarthy I think Wilfred Burchett is more apposite.
    Damn! That Aussie sarcasm stereotype is for real, eh. So that bloke's like the commie Aussie journalist version of Donald Trump.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    From CIA analysts: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...s/vietnam.html
    Recognition of the Vietnamese Communists' (VC) enormous advantages.

    CIA's analysts were aware that the basic stimulus among the politically conscious Vietnamese was nationalism and that, following World War II, the VM had largely captured the nationalist movement. Ho Chi Minh's apparatus came to be better led, better organized, and more united than any other of the competing, divided nationalist Vietnamese parties. Through a combination of some reforms and ruthless elimination of political rivals, the VM/VC dominated the countryside. Local populations seldom volunteered intelligence to the French, the South Vietnamese, or the Americans about Communist-led forces in their midst.

    Then, too, the VM's 1954 victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu and the end of French rule had been tremendous boosts to nationalist sentiment and Ho Chi Minh's status and popularity. At that time, most observers of Indochina affairs, including US intelligence agencies, judged that if nationwide elections were held, the VM would win by a large margin.

    A similar view was even shared by DCI Allen Dulles, who, according to the record of a 1954 NSC meeting, told that senior group that "The most disheartening feature of the news from Indochina . . . was the evidence that the majority of the people in Vietnam supported the Vietminh rebels."
    Another source, Studies in Intelligence: CIA and the Wars in Southeast Asia:
    In the wake of the Geneva settlement, then DCI Allen Dulles told Eisenhower's National Security Council that victory in the battle of Dien Bien Phu had tremendously boosted Hos popularity. If elections took place as planned in July 1956, Ho would easily win and bring all of Vietnam under communist control.
    [...]
    In an effort to reduce Ho's popularity and maintain a friendly, noncommunist Vietnamese government, the Eisenhower administration began to bolster the regime in the south.


    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Eisenhower might have said something like that, but what did he actually do? He sent military aid and equipment to what was called South Vietnam. Besides, what is now called Vietnam was ruled as three different "Kingdoms" by the French. These were Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina. Just because Vietnam calls itself The Democratic Republic of Vietnam now does not mean the area was one political entity in 1954. Kind of how the Kingdom of Cambodia became Democratic Kampuchea after the Khmer Rouge took over.

    Pruitt
    1. He admitted that the majority of Vietnamese people supported Ho Chi Minh, but he still sent his force to fight against him. So we can conclude that the US sh*t on the will of the Vietnamese

    2. Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina were the division created by the French. Before the French came, Vietnam was ONE country. So after Ho Chi Minh aborted French domination in Vietnam in 1945, that division automatically ended.
    Last edited by RiderOfTime; 20 Nov 18, 12:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    From the POV of American president Esenhower, 80% of Vietnamese population supported Ho Chi Minh. Who were the French and America to defy them?
    https://blog.vvfh.org/2016/04/the-19...ion-elections/

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Eisenhower might have said something like that, but what did he actually do? He sent military aid and equipment to what was called South Vietnam. Besides, what is now called Vietnam was ruled as three different "Kingdoms" by the French. These were Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina. Just because Vietnam calls itself The Democratic Republic of Vietnam now does not mean the area was one political entity in 1954. Kind of how the Kingdom of Cambodia became Democratic Kampuchea after the Khmer Rouge took over.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    s


    the question remains -was it?

    from Biafra to South Sudan we have seen the perils of this sort of shotgun marriage.
    from the POV of the French and America! indeed the west, in 1955, Ho chi MINH'S purges showed no sign of stopping.

    Sometimes partition is the only, cruel choice.
    From the POV of American president Esenhower, 80% of Vietnamese population supported Ho Chi Minh. Who were the French and America to defy them?

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    That is not an equivalent analogy. Vietnam has always been ONE SINGLE country. There was no "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam", but only "northern Vietnam" and "southern Vietnam".

    s


    the question remains -was it?

    from Biafra to South Sudan we have seen the perils of this sort of shotgun marriage.
    from the POV of the French and America! indeed the west, in 1955, Ho chi MINH'S purges showed no sign of stopping.

    Sometimes partition is the only, cruel choice.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X