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

  • Was Vietnam War to prevent North Vietnam from enforcing the 1954 Geneva Accords?

    Do you agree that the US enter Vietnam to prevent North Vietnam from enforcing the 1954 Geneva Accords, which was signed to unify Vietnam as one country?

  • #2
    no.
    The history addict asked me,"Where did you fought?"
    Me...Damn..."I'm not sure."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by hankwill View Post
      no.
      Why not?

      Comment


      • #4
        What was North Vietnam (the DRV) going to 'enforce'?

        The ceasefire was underway and French forces moved south of the 17th parallel, which now had a demilitarized zone. The extent to which Viet Minh forces moved North is open to debate, but no one much cares about DRV breaches.

        There was no reinforcement or re-arming of French forces, and it is open to debate if the Republic of Vietnam was covered by the agreement. No one seriously imagines that the DRV didn't start re-arming, but no one much cares about DRV breaches.

        The International Commission for Supervision & Control (ICC) was set up, though the DRV made it clear it wasn't going to be bound by its rulings.

        French forces withdrew from Cambodia & Laos, and in all likelihood so did Viet Minh forces. The Conference also declared that its participants respect the territorial integrity of those nations. Of course, the DRV would invade both nations by 1960, but no one much cares about that.

        The Conference declared:
        so far as Viet-Nam is concerned. the settlement of political problems, 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.
        Which parts of this was the DRV expected to 'enforce'? We can safely throw out anything relating to 'freedom' or 'democracy', so what does that leave?

        The Conference also decreed that there be free movement of peoples & no reprisals. The DRV was in continuous and sometimes violent breach of these provisions from the signing of the Accords onward. People who wished to move South were stopped, often violently. Everyone remembers the million that fled, no one talks about the million who weren't able to. However, as stated, no one much cares about DRV breaches.

        So, what was the DRV supposed to ''enforce' again?
        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


        • #5
          The US govt. did not start or enter the War to prevent DRV from enforcing the Geneva Accords. The US govt. did formally and officially state the US govt. would not undermine the Geneva Accords. However, this was a falsehood as the US govt. did work very hard and very successfully to undermined the said Accords. With the creation of the Diem authoritarian Regime and its replacement of the Emperor the civil war had its beginning. Upon the immediate violent assault upon the Left in the South by Diem/CIA, the DRV belatedly began to sent support to the South. The US govt. enter the fighting to support Diem. The US govt. and Diem wrecked the Geneva Accords. The DRV repeated stated they support the Geneva Accords even after the fighting commenced.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BF69 View Post
            What was North Vietnam (the DRV) going to 'enforce'?

            The ceasefire was underway and French forces moved south of the 17th parallel, which now had a demilitarized zone. The extent to which Viet Minh forces moved North is open to debate, but no one much cares about DRV breaches.

            There was no reinforcement or re-arming of French forces, and it is open to debate if the Republic of Vietnam was covered by the agreement. No one seriously imagines that the DRV didn't start re-arming, but no one much cares about DRV breaches.

            The International Commission for Supervision & Control (ICC) was set up, though the DRV made it clear it wasn't going to be bound by its rulings.

            French forces withdrew from Cambodia & Laos, and in all likelihood so did Viet Minh forces. The Conference also declared that its participants respect the territorial integrity of those nations. Of course, the DRV would invade both nations by 1960, but no one much cares about that.

            The Conference declared:

            Which parts of this was the DRV expected to 'enforce'? We can safely throw out anything relating to 'freedom' or 'democracy', so what does that leave?

            The Conference also decreed that there be free movement of peoples & no reprisals. The DRV was in continuous and sometimes violent breach of these provisions from the signing of the Accords onward. People who wished to move South were stopped, often violently. Everyone remembers the million that fled, no one talks about the million who weren't able to. However, as stated, no one much cares about DRV breaches.

            So, what was the DRV supposed to ''enforce' again?
            How about the reunification of the country, which was demanded by the Accords?

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              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


              • #8
                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, 21:00.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  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


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      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


                      • #12
                        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, 07:48.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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?
                            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


                            • #15
                              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.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X