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

  • 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:


  • 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.
    I sincerely hope that is one of your 'rimshots' slick. While I dislike your nation's political right (though I am rather fond of some of its individual members), I am extremely fond of your nation as a whole.

    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.
    OK, I'll try to whip something up, though it might be a bit weightier than the RD version.

    Guess now I'll owe you a 50-gal beer.
    I am hoping to visit your fair nation in 2020 and Brooklyn is definitely on my itinerary, so I may hold you to that.

    Oh, and if you are after a Socialist for me to play against your Joe McCarthy I think Wilfred Burchett is more apposite.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    Perhaps it's like Virginia and West Virginia.....NO ONE AFAIK, is looking to reunite them.....
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    How about the reunification of the country, which was demanded by the Accords?
    Perhaps it's like Virginia and West Virginia.....NO ONE AFAIK, is looking to reunite them.....

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    BTW, Slick, if you are driving the special needs bus in Canada you are also riding inside the special needs bus.I know, our bureaucratic rules.......double rim shot...

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    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.
    IIRC, 1954 was the year of the boat lift by the US Navy out of Haipong. Ho Chi Minh was 'purifying ' The NVCParty and over 40,000 of his followers were sent for re-incanation.

    fortunately, the massacre stopped.
    Uncle H o was not always Ho H o.....



    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    No worries Slick. I'll try to get to it tonight or tomorrow night. Are there particular things you are specifically interested in?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    You know me: I play Joe McCarthy to your Leon Trotsky, so your account of events in this thread plays against established type. I must confess, with some genuine embarrassment, that I am not especially knowledgeable about the events in question. Ignore the troll, and educated me instead. For that you'll have my gratitude.
    No worries Slick. I'll try to get to it tonight or tomorrow night. Are there particular things you are specifically interested in?

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    Wikipedia or Vietnamese government propaganda? Certainly not history given the curious absence of some very important events.

    Troll until proved otherwise.
    You know me: I play Joe McCarthy to your Leon Trotsky, so your account of events in this thread plays against established type. I must confess, with some genuine embarrassment, that I am not especially knowledgeable about the events in question. Ignore the troll, and educated me instead. For that you'll have my gratitude.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    Wikipedia or Vietnamese government propaganda? Certainly not history given the curious absence of some very important events.

    Troll until proved otherwise.
    What? Now I have to prove that the South of Vietnam was a part of Vietnam? So in your version of history, was the South of Cambodia or Laos before 1954?

    And if you ask about the very important event, it was the abdication of Bao Dai. He issued the act of abdication on 28 August 1945, and handed over the Royal Sword and Seal to representatives of the DRV on 30 August, effectively crowned the DRV as the new succeeding government of Vietnam.

    Last edited by RiderOfTime; 19 Nov 18, 06:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    The South, as a whole, has been a part of the sovereign Vietnam since at least 1832 (and parts of it were annexed by Vietnam even further, as old as 1698) under the Dynasty of Nguyen.



    Therefore, after the Nguyen transferred their rulership and sovereignty of Vietnam (includes both the North and the South) to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in August 1945, the South has been a part of the DRV since then.

    Wikipedia or Vietnamese government propaganda? Certainly not history given the curious absence of some very important events.

    Troll until proved otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    You clearly have an extraordinarily poor understanding of this entire period of Vietnamese history. The fact that you think the South was at any time 'part of the DRV', and that it was up to the DRV to 'enforce' the Accords simply underlines this. It makes any intelligent discussion of this issue extremely difficult.

    So, if I have the time & the inclination I might come back & attempt to educate you....or I might not. Depends on whether or not you seem capable of learning. Not promising thus far, but I can be persuaded.
    The South, as a whole, has been a part of the sovereign Vietnam since at least 1832 (and parts of it were annexed by Vietnam even further, as old as 1698) under the Dynasty of Nguyen.



    Therefore, after the Nguyen transferred their rulership and sovereignty of Vietnam (includes both the North and the South) to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in August 1945, the South has been a part of the DRV since then.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    You keep asking "how was", but the real question is, who are you ask that? The Accords was signed by Vietnam and France. If France had no complaint, who was the US to say that Vietnam "breached" the Accords or Vietnam should not enforce the Accords?

    Also, the Geneva Accords DIDN'T ALLOW for reunification (you say as if reunification is something you could choose NOT TO DO, which is criminal and treasonous btw). It DEMANDED it, as reunification would have automatically happened immedimately right after the French withdrew. In fact, Vietnam was never divided in the first place. The Accords simply set a military division between the French in the South and the Vietnamese in the North, so that the French had time to gather and withdraw their army. It didn't allow for the creation of South Vietnam, or any kind of extra government in the South. The South didn't cease to be a part of the DRV by the Accords.
    You clearly have an extraordinarily poor understanding of this entire period of Vietnamese history. The fact that you think the South was at any time 'part of the DRV', and that it was up to the DRV to 'enforce' the Accords simply underlines this. It makes any intelligent discussion of this issue extremely difficult.

    So, if I have the time & the inclination I might come back & attempt to educate you....or I might not. Depends on whether or not you seem capable of learning. Not promising thus far, but I can be persuaded.

    Leave a comment:


  • RiderOfTime
    replied
    Originally posted by BF69 View Post

    'Demanded' was it? Do tell.

    The Accords did say that an national election was to take place:

    The DRV had never and has never shown any commitment to 'fundamental freedoms', 'democratic institutions' or 'free general elections by secret ballot'. The only time it ever participated in anything like that it ended up imprisoning and murdering its opponents, at times with French assistance, and establishing a dictatorship.

    So, how was the DRV going to 'enforce' something it was incapable of doing - hold a free & fair secret ballot? The Geneva Accords allowed for reunification under the circumstances I have outlined. It was not something the DRV was going to do. In fact, the DRV had already torn up the Accords and shown it would completely ignore the ICC by denying free passage to people who wanted to flee South. Why should those Vietnamese who did not want to end up under the dictatorship the DRV was going to impose be forced to go through a sham election that was not going to be carried out as 'demanded' by the Accords?

    I am also curious as to why you ignore all the other elements of the Accords - some of which were openly breached by the DRV - in favour of just one? Sounds to me like agenda pushing.

    Oh, and time to start putting some effort into your posts. Ill informed one liners might cut it in the politics section, but history forums are for grown ups. Put up or shut up time.
    You keep asking "how was", but the real question is, who are you ask that? The Accords was signed by Vietnam and France. If France had no complaint, who was the US to say that Vietnam "breached" the Accords or Vietnam should not enforce the Accords?

    Also, the Geneva Accords DIDN'T ALLOW for reunification (you say as if reunification is something you could choose NOT TO DO, which is criminal and treasonous btw). It DEMANDED it, as reunification would have automatically happened immedimately right after the French withdrew. In fact, Vietnam was never divided in the first place. The Accords simply set a military division between the French in the South and the Vietnamese in the North, so that the French had time to gather and withdraw their army. It didn't allow for the creation of South Vietnam, or any kind of extra government in the South. The South didn't cease to be a part of the DRV by the Accords.
    Last edited by RiderOfTime; 18 Nov 18, 20:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    Originally posted by RiderOfTime View Post

    How about the reunification of the country, which was demanded by the Accords?
    'Demanded' was it? Do tell.

    The Accords did say that an national election was to take place:
    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.
    The DRV had never and has never shown any commitment to 'fundamental freedoms', 'democratic institutions' or 'free general elections by secret ballot'. The only time it ever participated in anything like that it ended up imprisoning and murdering its opponents, at times with French assistance, and establishing a dictatorship.

    So, how was the DRV going to 'enforce' something it was incapable of doing - hold a free & fair secret ballot? The Geneva Accords allowed for reunification under the circumstances I have outlined. It was not something the DRV was going to do. In fact, the DRV had already torn up the Accords and shown it would completely ignore the ICC by denying free passage to people who wanted to flee South. Why should those Vietnamese who did not want to end up under the dictatorship the DRV was going to impose be forced to go through a sham election that was not going to be carried out as 'demanded' by the Accords?

    I am also curious as to why you ignore all the other elements of the Accords - some of which were openly breached by the DRV - in favour of just one? Sounds to me like agenda pushing.

    Oh, and time to start putting some effort into your posts. Ill informed one liners might cut it in the politics section, but history forums are for grown ups. Put up or shut up time.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X