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

  • #76
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    Even South Vietnamese people in 1955 openly claimed that he was a puppet selling his country:


    https://history.state.gov/historical...955-57v01/d278



    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
    oh no. not for now. Explains a lot about where your coming from though......

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post

      oh no. not for now. Explains a lot about where your coming from though......
      A simple read of the Pentagon Papers shows that there were 5,480 personnel of that "Vietnamese National Army" presented at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, on the French side, accounted for 36.2% of the enemy army. So we can say that the army you mentioned contributed VERY VERY VERY BADLY, even NEGATIVELY to the war of national liberation against France in Vietnam.

      Comment


      • #78
        Please allow some modification to BF69 Post #60. Which is somewhat of a nice post. But I want to make it more historical and better FOR BF69.

        Again the US was not one of the "participants" and the list provided had some factual errors. Britain is not listed, and it was Britain who had a major impact in the success of the Accords. The US govt. was a claimed observer, but actually a troublemaker, and conducted itself shamefully. France was the only representative for those Vietnamese in the southern French Empire/Union enclave. One should not cited South Vietnam, as it did not exist yet, as it would be declared later by Diem, after Diem's coup to remove Bao Dai.

        It was said the overarching fear was that the VM "would set up a state". The VM had already set up a state, and one could say it was recognized, because it was a major participate in the treaty talks. That being a major reason for the US govt. not being a participate. Yes Folks that's right the US govt. was very upset over the existence of the only independent and sovereign state (DRV/North) of the Vietnamese people at these talks over the future of the Vietnamese People.

        It keeps being said South Vietnam never signed the Accords and therefore its breaching of the Accords were not illegal. South Vietnam only breaching cited is rearming. Once again, South Vietnam did not sign because their colonial masters/French signed for them and because South Vietnam has not yet being formed by Diem Regime. Diem/CIA did much more breaching than only rearming. Its greatest breaching was the whole sale slaughter/imprisonment of the Left and other opponents of Diem in the South.

        It was misleading and wrong to claim that the prosecution of the Landlords in the North caused massive disruption to agriculture and society. The truth history of food shortage in the North goes back to the Japanese, French, and yes even the Landlords mismanagement. I have read where one half of peasants families in the North gained farm land from the land distribution took from the monopolistic Landlords and it was this that resolved the long term food shortages. Late collective program was a later issue.

        Finally it is simple obfuscation to claim wrongly that "only one signatories (DRV/North) to the Accords was really interested in holding the elections.)

        Comment


        • #79
          Here's some information from the recommended book: EMBERS OF WAR by FREDRIK LOGEVALL. Here we find a serious breach of the Accords by the State of Vietnam (Diem/CIA regime) and I believe it more serious than mere rearmament violation. Here a tease from the book:

          "The Saigon premier (Diem) also launched a campaign of repression, under the slogan "Denounce the Communists,' which summoned the population into mass meetings to denounce Viet Minh members and sympathizers; the South Vietnamese army and police arrested thousands of suspected subversives and sent them to detention camps. The regime escalated the effort in January 1956 by issuing Ordinance No. 6, which gave officials almost unlimited powers in combating political opponents. Henceforth, the edict read, anyone considered a danger "to the defense of the state and public order" was to be thrown in jail or placed under house arrest until "order and security" had been achieved however deep into the future that might be. Hundreds of executions occurred, some of them by beheading or disembowelment. The harsh methods were not without effect. Gradually, through1956 and 1957, clandestine Viet Minh organizations in the south were decimated."

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
            Here's some information from the recommended book: EMBERS OF WAR by FREDRIK LOGEVALL. Here we find a serious breach of the Accords by the State of Vietnam (Diem/CIA regime) and I believe it more serious than mere rearmament violation. Here a tease from the book:

            "The Saigon premier (Diem) also launched a campaign of repression, under the slogan "Denounce the Communists,' which summoned the population into mass meetings to denounce Viet Minh members and sympathizers; the South Vietnamese army and police arrested thousands of suspected subversives and sent them to detention camps. The regime escalated the effort in January 1956 by issuing Ordinance No. 6, which gave officials almost unlimited powers in combating political opponents. Henceforth, the edict read, anyone considered a danger "to the defense of the state and public order" was to be thrown in jail or placed under house arrest until "order and security" had been achieved however deep into the future that might be. Hundreds of executions occurred, some of them by beheading or disembowelment. The harsh methods were not without effect. Gradually, through1956 and 1957, clandestine Viet Minh organizations in the south were decimated."
            I'll get to your longer post later, but this one is easy - what is the specific breach of the Geneva Accords committed by the State of Vietnam & Republic of Vietnam in this instance? Be very specific. In your zeal to denounce the SVN/RVN you have reminded us that the DRV was in breach of the Accords by leaving VM cadre in the south. The Accords were explicit on this point. There were supposed to be no forces left behind for the SVN/RVN to 'decimate'. The DRV flagrantly breached that condition as well as others.

            Of course, what you describe here was simply a smaller version of what the DRV did when it took over, except there were no 'hidden cadre' for them to persecute. They focused on 'landlords' and others who had a different view of the future of Vietnam from theirs.

            So, if there was an SVN/RVN breach of Accords they had not assented to then there is also a breach of accords by the DRV, which had signed them. Again, this argues the case for not holding the 1956 elections. The DRV broke the Accords repeatedly, flagrantly with premeditation and from the moment they were signed. To somehow argue that nations that had never accepted the Accords should be bound by them when the nation to whom they were most significant did not is absurd.
            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


            • #81
              This one is not an "easy" for you as your argument is based on a falsehood. If I am not mistaken, the Accords directions were that only military units on both sides had to withdraw to their respective areas. The DRV carried out their withdrawn of the formal military units to my understanding. The French units had faithfully withdrawn. You seem wrong in claiming the supporters/civilians of the Revolution had to move as this was not demanded in the Accords to my knowledge. They were expected to remain in their original homes and begin peacefully working toward organizing the lawful forthcoming election as per the Accords. Many of these could be called VM cadres if you prefer but they were not enrolled in military units but were southerners with a right to engage in the political system. The Diem/CIA regime declared an unlawful war upon these political engaged southerners who were specifically protected by the Accords.

              You wrongly keep refer to the Landlords issue which was within the context of the Land Reform program and the lawful prosecution of landlords who may have committed crimes. This issue is not related to the Accords with nothing in the Accords about landlords and certainly nothing there about granting legal protection of landlord from lawful criminal prosecution. It is my understanding that errors were made in the Land Reform program but it had no bearing on the Accords issue on this Thread. You certainly can not use this issue as your foundation for granting the French south their right to ignore the Accords.

              Comment


              • #82
                Everyone here should read this; https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intre...gon/pent11.htm

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                  This one is not an "easy" for you as your argument is based on a falsehood. If I am not mistaken, the Accords directions were that only military units on both sides had to withdraw to their respective areas. The DRV carried out their withdrawn of the formal military units to my understanding. The French units had faithfully withdrawn. You seem wrong in claiming the supporters/civilians of the Revolution had to move as this was not demanded in the Accords to my knowledge. They were expected to remain in their original homes and begin peacefully working toward organizing the lawful forthcoming election as per the Accords. Many of these could be called VM cadres if you prefer but they were not enrolled in military units but were southerners with a right to engage in the political system. The Diem/CIA regime declared an unlawful war upon these political engaged southerners who were specifically protected by the Accords.

                  You wrongly keep refer to the Landlords issue which was within the context of the Land Reform program and the lawful prosecution of landlords who may have committed crimes. This issue is not related to the Accords with nothing in the Accords about landlords and certainly nothing there about granting legal protection of landlord from lawful criminal prosecution. It is my understanding that errors were made in the Land Reform program but it had no bearing on the Accords issue on this Thread. You certainly can not use this issue as your foundation for granting the French south their right to ignore the Accords.
                  I asked a question. Are you going to answer it or are you going to avoid it? This is twice today you have avoided a simple question about something you posted. It is getting tedious and makes a worthwhile discussion pretty much impossible.
                  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


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
                    another side of "uncle Ho" from a Vietnamese......I always wondered why the South Vietnamese and their viewpoints are almost always ignored.....
                    It is the great gap in most people's understanding of the Vietnam War and I think there are multiple overlapping causes causes.

                    The first problem is that Americans in particular have largely seen the war as an American war that happened to take place in Vietnam. While the attitude may not have been/be universal, it was a powerful element in US thinking at the time and seeped into reporting & writing on the war. It is an attitude that crosses politics & ideology. Just think of how many discussions you have had/seen about Vietnam that spend all their time on US strategy, US politics, the US media & US protesters. There have been posts in this forum in just the last week perpetuating just that thinking. While Americans aren't the only people who think they are the centre of the universe, that attitude frequently produces insanely skewed views on places outside the US (read some of the posts on the 'Europe' thread if you want to see modern examples).

                    There is a bit more to this, however. The Communist Vietnamese do get more attention & more respect. I suspect that this is a combination of factors. They produced some of the more impressive figures of the conflict - people like Ho & Giap. More importantly, these people led their side to victory over the French and created the institutions that beat the US & RVN. They get to be the 'tough enemy' or the 'freedom fighters' depending on your politics. Non-Communist Vietnamese had a harder story to tell because Ho took control of the narrative. Their desire for a non-Communist Vietnam could only be realised by aligning with powers such as Japan, France & the US - heavily armed outsiders. Worse, they weren't as good at governing or fighting as the communist Vietnamese. Not everyone & always, but too many.

                    In the end the non-Communist Vietnamese lost, and with it lost any chance to control their own narrative. There is no nation to promote their story. There are no official archives to research. There are no nationalist Vietnamese universities to study that past. There is a diaspora split in its approach to that past and people left behind under a regime actively interested in suppressing positive stories about its former enemies. There are individual accounts and a few historians here & there looking to tell those stories. Neither right or left wing Americans really had much incentive to promote Sth Vietnamese narratives. The right was & is too busy settling its domestic scores and the left basically thinks the right side won, so narratives that challenge that aren't much sought after. Of course, that is broad brush. The cause of Vietnamese refugees and the stories they have to tell has been championed by people on various parts of the political spectrum, as has their history.

                    Sorry about the length, but the ongoing dismissal of the perspective of non-Communist Vietnamese is one of my major bugbears,
                    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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by BF69 View Post

                      It is the great gap in most people's understanding of the Vietnam War and I think there are multiple overlapping causes causes.

                      The first problem is that Americans in particular have largely seen the war as an American war that happened to take place in Vietnam. While the attitude may not have been/be universal, it was a powerful element in US thinking at the time and seeped into reporting & writing on the war. It is an attitude that crosses politics & ideology. Just think of how many discussions you have had/seen about Vietnam that spend all their time on US strategy, US politics, the US media & US protesters. There have been posts in this forum in just the last week perpetuating just that thinking. While Americans aren't the only people who think they are the centre of the universe, that attitude frequently produces insanely skewed views on places outside the US (read some of the posts on the 'Europe' thread if you want to see modern examples).

                      There is a bit more to this, however. The Communist Vietnamese do get more attention & more respect. I suspect that this is a combination of factors. They produced some of the more impressive figures of the conflict - people like Ho & Giap. More importantly, these people led their side to victory over the French and created the institutions that beat the US & RVN. They get to be the 'tough enemy' or the 'freedom fighters' depending on your politics. Non-Communist Vietnamese had a harder story to tell because Ho took control of the narrative. Their desire for a non-Communist Vietnam could only be realised by aligning with powers such as Japan, France & the US - heavily armed outsiders. Worse, they weren't as good at governing or fighting as the communist Vietnamese. Not everyone & always, but too many.

                      In the end the non-Communist Vietnamese lost, and with it lost any chance to control their own narrative. There is no nation to promote their story. There are no official archives to research. There are no nationalist Vietnamese universities to study that past. There is a diaspora split in its approach to that past and people left behind under a regime actively interested in suppressing positive stories about its former enemies. There are individual accounts and a few historians here & there looking to tell those stories. Neither right or left wing Americans really had much incentive to promote Sth Vietnamese narratives. The right was & is too busy settling its domestic scores and the left basically thinks the right side won, so narratives that challenge that aren't much sought after. Of course, that is broad brush. The cause of Vietnamese refugees and the stories they have to tell has been championed by people on various parts of the political spectrum, as has their history.

                      Sorry about the length, but the ongoing dismissal of the perspective of non-Communist Vietnamese is one of my major bugbears,
                      One of the best explanations of how things have gotten "skewed" over the years. I agree totally.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by BF69 View Post

                        It is the great gap in most people's understanding of the Vietnam War and I think there are multiple overlapping causes causes.

                        The first problem is that Americans in particular have largely seen the war as an American war that happened to take place in Vietnam. While the attitude may not have been/be universal, it was a powerful element in US thinking at the time and seeped into reporting & writing on the war. It is an attitude that crosses politics & ideology. Just think of how many discussions you have had/seen about Vietnam that spend all their time on US strategy, US politics, the US media & US protesters. There have been posts in this forum in just the last week perpetuating just that thinking. While Americans aren't the only people who think they are the centre of the universe, that attitude frequently produces insanely skewed views on places outside the US (read some of the posts on the 'Europe' thread if you want to see modern examples).

                        There is a bit more to this, however. The Communist Vietnamese do get more attention & more respect. I suspect that this is a combination of factors. They produced some of the more impressive figures of the conflict - people like Ho & Giap. More importantly, these people led their side to victory over the French and created the institutions that beat the US & RVN. They get to be the 'tough enemy' or the 'freedom fighters' depending on your politics. Non-Communist Vietnamese had a harder story to tell because Ho took control of the narrative. Their desire for a non-Communist Vietnam could only be realised by aligning with powers such as Japan, France & the US - heavily armed outsiders. Worse, they weren't as good at governing or fighting as the communist Vietnamese. Not everyone & always, but too many.

                        In the end the non-Communist Vietnamese lost, and with it lost any chance to control their own narrative. There is no nation to promote their story. There are no official archives to research. There are no nationalist Vietnamese universities to study that past. There is a diaspora split in its approach to that past and people left behind under a regime actively interested in suppressing positive stories about its former enemies. There are individual accounts and a few historians here & there looking to tell those stories. Neither right or left wing Americans really had much incentive to promote Sth Vietnamese narratives. The right was & is too busy settling its domestic scores and the left basically thinks the right side won, so narratives that challenge that aren't much sought after. Of course, that is broad brush. The cause of Vietnamese refugees and the stories they have to tell has been championed by people on various parts of the political spectrum, as has their history.

                        Sorry about the length, but the ongoing dismissal of the perspective of non-Communist Vietnamese is one of my major bugbears,
                        Given that there a few Americans who have their own sort of stab in the back belief about Vietnam, I wonder if the RVN is also something of a scapegoat amongst those circles.

                        I would love to read a good book on South Vietnam, the ARVN in particular. Any recommendations?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Queensland View Post

                          Given that there a few Americans who have their own sort of stab in the back belief about Vietnam, I wonder if the RVN is also something of a scapegoat amongst those circles.

                          I would love to read a good book on South Vietnam, the ARVN in particular. Any recommendations?
                          This might be a good one....

                          https://www.amazon.com/South-Vietnam...ustomerReviews

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
                            That looks very promising, thanks!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post

                              One of the best explanations of how things have gotten "skewed" over the years. I agree totally.
                              Thanks jeff. By no means comprehensive, but something I've given a bit of thought to.

                              As a younger man I was wholly on board with what might be called the 'standard leftish narrative' - Communist Vietnamese = brave liberators, Americans = oppressors, non-Communist Vietnamese = corrupt collaborators. Engaging in a deep study of the war and living in the midst of a large expat Vietnamese community (I walk past the old RVN flag daily) beat the simplistic tendencies out of me.

                              I once commented to a Vietnamese acquaintance at Uni that the Vietnamese 'won'. As a child of Sth Vietnamese immigrants he quickly corrected me - 'not all of us'. Since then I have worked with a man whose parents fled the North and whose father was a minor RVN official. He turned 18 in 1975 & recalled the years of living in terror as friends & acquaintances disappeared for months or years on end...or sometimes forever. A few years ago i was getting a blood sample taken at a local pathology lab. I had just got back from a trip to Vietnam, so I asked the nurse if she had ever returned home. She gave me the saddest look and said 'I have no home'.

                              None of these experiences redeems the profound failures of non-Communist Vietnamese & the RVN, but it has been a reminder that brushing aside their perspectives is an act of prejudice pure & simple. I still think the 'leftish' critique of US actions has something to offer, but only balanced by an understanding of the worst aspects of Communist behaviour and the perspectives of the non-Communist Vietnamese.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Queensland View Post

                                Given that there a few Americans who have their own sort of stab in the back belief about Vietnam, I wonder if the RVN is also something of a scapegoat amongst those circles.
                                I haven't seen as much scapegoating among the 'dolschtoss brigade' as you might think. They tend to be so focused on attacking their domestic enemies that other considerations are very much secondary. Sometimes they are dismissive of the RVN based on competence & corruption. Sometimes they show no interest. Sometimes they show genuine interest in/compassion for the Vietnamese, though this tends to be a subset of veterans & usually disconnected from broader arguments.

                                A revived trend is actually to exaggerate the capabilities of the ARVN in an attempt to make the domestic left look even more evil. The truly execrable piece of propaganda that starts the linked thread (I'll be getting to it soon) is a great example. By pumping up the tires of the ARVN they can exaggerate the 'betrayal', which is itself a fallacious construct.

                                https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...he-vietnam-war

                                Sadly Americans tend to argue with Americans about what they see as an American war. Vietnamese get to be bit players.

                                I would love to read a good book on South Vietnam, the ARVN in particular. Any recommendations?
                                Sadly the people on this board who could give you the best tips no longer post. This one is good, and the link is to the PDF. Given the prices I've seen quoted for it the PDF is your best chance of reading it.

                                https://epdf.tips/vietnams-forgotten...-the-arvn.html

                                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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X