History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Causes of Vietnam war
Zacman

Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:09 AM UTC
I'am interested to hear what you think were the causes of the conflict in Vietnam?
fbuis

Member Since: June 24, 2004
entire network: 447 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 02:18 PM UTC
Hi Mark,
It was too complex to explain the cause of the Vietnam war on Armorama and that will be a big discuss about this. There was a lot of document, books and media for knowing this war.
Many secret document recently published in books so I take a lot of time for reading, not only politician writers but also militarians and those I read were not only in one side but both side: the United States, the North and South Vietnam and the world at that time. Here are some books:
- Vietnam : A History by Stanley Karnow
- Ending the Vietnam War : A History of America's Involvement in and Extrication from the Vietnam War by Henry Kissinger
- America's Lost War: Vietnam: 1945-1975 (American History Series (Arlington Heights, Ill.).) by Charles E. Neu
- Argument Without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy by Robert Mc Namara
- How We Won the War by General Vo Nguyen Giap
- Our Great Spring Victory: An Account of the Liberation of South Vietnam by General Van Tien Dung
- A Soldier Reports by General William C. Westmoreland
- It Doesn't Take a Hero by General Norman H. Schwarzkopf
- My American Journey by General Colin L. Powell
- In Retrospect : The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam by Robert Mc Namara
- The Palace File by G. Tien Hung Nguyen
- Buddha's Child : My Fight to Save Vietnam by Vice Air Marshall Nguyen Cao Ky
- The Twenty-Five Year Century: A South Vietnamese General Remembers the Indochina War to the Fall of Saigon by General Quang Thi Lam
- No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam by Larry Berman
- A Sense of Duty : My Father, My American Journey by Quang X Pham, Vietnamese-American, former US Marines Helicopter Pilot in the Gulf war.
All these books you can find out on Amazon website. There is more books, documents, media that some Armorama members here could advice you to read, to see...
Hope that helps.
Francois
It was too complex to explain the cause of the Vietnam war on Armorama and that will be a big discuss about this. There was a lot of document, books and media for knowing this war.
Many secret document recently published in books so I take a lot of time for reading, not only politician writers but also militarians and those I read were not only in one side but both side: the United States, the North and South Vietnam and the world at that time. Here are some books:
- Vietnam : A History by Stanley Karnow
- Ending the Vietnam War : A History of America's Involvement in and Extrication from the Vietnam War by Henry Kissinger
- America's Lost War: Vietnam: 1945-1975 (American History Series (Arlington Heights, Ill.).) by Charles E. Neu
- Argument Without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy by Robert Mc Namara
- How We Won the War by General Vo Nguyen Giap
- Our Great Spring Victory: An Account of the Liberation of South Vietnam by General Van Tien Dung
- A Soldier Reports by General William C. Westmoreland
- It Doesn't Take a Hero by General Norman H. Schwarzkopf
- My American Journey by General Colin L. Powell
- In Retrospect : The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam by Robert Mc Namara
- The Palace File by G. Tien Hung Nguyen
- Buddha's Child : My Fight to Save Vietnam by Vice Air Marshall Nguyen Cao Ky
- The Twenty-Five Year Century: A South Vietnamese General Remembers the Indochina War to the Fall of Saigon by General Quang Thi Lam
- No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam by Larry Berman
- A Sense of Duty : My Father, My American Journey by Quang X Pham, Vietnamese-American, former US Marines Helicopter Pilot in the Gulf war.
All these books you can find out on Amazon website. There is more books, documents, media that some Armorama members here could advice you to read, to see...
Hope that helps.
Francois
Zacman

Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 02:32 PM UTC
[quote]Hi Mark,
It was too complex to explain the cause of the Vietnam war on Armorama and that will be a big discuss about this.
You don't have to give me the full account, there is what seems to be some pretty smart people , that use this website, of different age groups, I want to hear what people think.
It was too complex to explain the cause of the Vietnam war on Armorama and that will be a big discuss about this.
You don't have to give me the full account, there is what seems to be some pretty smart people , that use this website, of different age groups, I want to hear what people think.
AJLaFleche

Member Since: May 05, 2002
entire network: 8,074 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,574 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 05:21 PM UTC
Long story short.
(IMHO) Indochina was a French colony undergoing a surge of anti colonial nationalism. The leader was Ho Chi Minh who eventually overthrew the French with the penultimate battle at Dien Bien Phu. The country is partitioned as was Korea. The North becomes a Communist state and the South a sort of western democracy without a lot of history and culture to support it. The government is rife with curropt politicians and there is a grreat deal of internal unrest. Ho want to unify his country but can't get the support of the United States because of his leftist views while we're involved in the Red Scare. He gets assistance from China and the USSR and initiates actions against the South. The US interprets this as Communist expansion rather than natioalism and begins sending advisors. Those numbers increase. There are reported (questionable) attacks by North Viet Namese gunboats againt teh US fleet inthe Gulf of Tonkin which President Johnson uses a reason to send in a greatly increased number of ground troops.
(IMHO) Indochina was a French colony undergoing a surge of anti colonial nationalism. The leader was Ho Chi Minh who eventually overthrew the French with the penultimate battle at Dien Bien Phu. The country is partitioned as was Korea. The North becomes a Communist state and the South a sort of western democracy without a lot of history and culture to support it. The government is rife with curropt politicians and there is a grreat deal of internal unrest. Ho want to unify his country but can't get the support of the United States because of his leftist views while we're involved in the Red Scare. He gets assistance from China and the USSR and initiates actions against the South. The US interprets this as Communist expansion rather than natioalism and begins sending advisors. Those numbers increase. There are reported (questionable) attacks by North Viet Namese gunboats againt teh US fleet inthe Gulf of Tonkin which President Johnson uses a reason to send in a greatly increased number of ground troops.
thathaway3

Member Since: September 10, 2004
entire network: 1,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 265 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:13 PM UTC
Great synopsis of a complex series of events.
One interesting discussion about our involvement I ran across had some additional thoughts. During WW II the OSS was working with Ho Chi Mihn who of course was fighting against the Japanese. There was a certain expectation on Ho's part that after the war was over, the US would support him in his goal of uniting the country. While he was a "communist" there is some thought that his vision was not necessarily solidly aligned with the Soviet Union. There is NO doubt he was encouraged by local agents with whom he was working. Whether their statements and assurances to him actually reflected top level policy is hard to say for certain.
At the end of hostilities, the French felt entitled to regain control in their former colony of French Indo-China. The French government made it clear to the US that it expected our assistance in that endeavor, which was not exactly what we wanted to do. To accomplish their goal, the French government made it clear that unless we cooperated with them in regaining control of Indo-China, they would make it very difficult for us in Western Europe.
At that time, both Germany and Austria were divided into four separate regions, occupied by the 4 Allied Powers, and confronting the growing Soviet threat of expansion into all of Europe was view as being a MUCH bigger issue than what happened in Indo-China. The stakes in Europe were higher and the ability to make things difficult for us much easier.
So we threw in our support to the French and events went down hill from there. Having no really good alternatives from which to seek support, Ho threw in his lot with the Soviets, who were MORE than willing to help.
The events in Korea in 1950 especially with China's entrance into the war on the side of North Korea seemed to vindicate the strategy. Once the French were defeated and the country partitioned, we almost had no choice but to back the South Vietnamese government, which did not necessarily have the best interests of the average citizen in mind.
Tom
One interesting discussion about our involvement I ran across had some additional thoughts. During WW II the OSS was working with Ho Chi Mihn who of course was fighting against the Japanese. There was a certain expectation on Ho's part that after the war was over, the US would support him in his goal of uniting the country. While he was a "communist" there is some thought that his vision was not necessarily solidly aligned with the Soviet Union. There is NO doubt he was encouraged by local agents with whom he was working. Whether their statements and assurances to him actually reflected top level policy is hard to say for certain.
At the end of hostilities, the French felt entitled to regain control in their former colony of French Indo-China. The French government made it clear to the US that it expected our assistance in that endeavor, which was not exactly what we wanted to do. To accomplish their goal, the French government made it clear that unless we cooperated with them in regaining control of Indo-China, they would make it very difficult for us in Western Europe.
At that time, both Germany and Austria were divided into four separate regions, occupied by the 4 Allied Powers, and confronting the growing Soviet threat of expansion into all of Europe was view as being a MUCH bigger issue than what happened in Indo-China. The stakes in Europe were higher and the ability to make things difficult for us much easier.
So we threw in our support to the French and events went down hill from there. Having no really good alternatives from which to seek support, Ho threw in his lot with the Soviets, who were MORE than willing to help.
The events in Korea in 1950 especially with China's entrance into the war on the side of North Korea seemed to vindicate the strategy. Once the French were defeated and the country partitioned, we almost had no choice but to back the South Vietnamese government, which did not necessarily have the best interests of the average citizen in mind.
Tom
Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 01:53 AM UTC
Hi guys,
I wrote a short paper a little over a year ago, dealing sideways with this topic. It was about Eisenhower and his relationship to Vietnam. names elude me at the moment, and as I am currenlty 20 hours of travel and 12 timezones away from the computer on which the paper is saved I do have I hope you can forgive me for going by memory and names eluding me.
If anything that struck me, is that under his watch the crucial mistakes were made. In no particular order:
1) Eisenhower lead the fear of the dominoes take over. The fear that once Vietnam fell, eventually the whole of South-East Asia would fall. This was though a typical product of the mindset in that era.
2) Ngo Dinh Diem, the corrupt leader of South vietnam. Before all hell broke loose, Eisenhower sent one envoy to Vietnam to investigate what the problems were, and what caused the rising support for North Vietnam in the South. The envoy he sent was his most trusted officer in WW II (name elude me). In Vietnam he, in cooperation with a French officer (the man who had been behind Dienh Bien Phu) would look into it. Though they, especially in the beginning, hated eachothers guts they eventually arrived at the same conclusion. The biggest problem was Diem. After a hard fight with Washington politicians Eisenhower was convinced Diem had to go. Diem however was informed, staged a fake uprising, and in the ensuing chaos Diems friends in Washington (IIRC a few senators or Representatives), combined with a few ministers of Eisenhower, managed to convince Eisenhower to not depose Diem, but support him.
Reading about this was one of the most surreal readings in my life, to be honest... how Eisenhower in the end ignored the advice of his most trusted commanders, and mostly anybody with any decent knowledge in the field there...
Hope this helps a little,
Harm
I wrote a short paper a little over a year ago, dealing sideways with this topic. It was about Eisenhower and his relationship to Vietnam. names elude me at the moment, and as I am currenlty 20 hours of travel and 12 timezones away from the computer on which the paper is saved I do have I hope you can forgive me for going by memory and names eluding me.
If anything that struck me, is that under his watch the crucial mistakes were made. In no particular order:
1) Eisenhower lead the fear of the dominoes take over. The fear that once Vietnam fell, eventually the whole of South-East Asia would fall. This was though a typical product of the mindset in that era.
2) Ngo Dinh Diem, the corrupt leader of South vietnam. Before all hell broke loose, Eisenhower sent one envoy to Vietnam to investigate what the problems were, and what caused the rising support for North Vietnam in the South. The envoy he sent was his most trusted officer in WW II (name elude me). In Vietnam he, in cooperation with a French officer (the man who had been behind Dienh Bien Phu) would look into it. Though they, especially in the beginning, hated eachothers guts they eventually arrived at the same conclusion. The biggest problem was Diem. After a hard fight with Washington politicians Eisenhower was convinced Diem had to go. Diem however was informed, staged a fake uprising, and in the ensuing chaos Diems friends in Washington (IIRC a few senators or Representatives), combined with a few ministers of Eisenhower, managed to convince Eisenhower to not depose Diem, but support him.
Reading about this was one of the most surreal readings in my life, to be honest... how Eisenhower in the end ignored the advice of his most trusted commanders, and mostly anybody with any decent knowledge in the field there...
Hope this helps a little,
Harm
blaster76

Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts

Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 03:34 AM UTC
What has been going on in the region Viet am, Laos, Cambodia, and the southern area of China where it connects has been going on for 900+ years now. It is similar to the Balken area mess and the Egypt -Persia-Babylon-Hittite-Assyrian-Ottoman Turks, etc etc etc parts of the world. Each little tribe of people as they grow bigger want more and more land space and resources and try to take away from their neighbors rather than establish trade. The US envolment (along with some help form a few other countries ) was a mere drop in the bucket on the time line of this mess.(and any of the others)
acav

Member Since: May 09, 2002
entire network: 517 Posts
KitMaker Network: 183 Posts

Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 03:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'am interested to hear what you think were the causes of the conflict in Vietnam?
A combination of -
VIetnamese desire to be free of colonial overlordship (right to self determination).
Intransigence of Colonial power (France).
Arrogance of Western Allies post WW2 (handing Vietnam back to colonial power).
Intransigent Cold War doctrine (falling dominoes, fears of 'evils of Communism', etc) and Western (US)arrogance - also US willingness to support unsavoury regimes.
... in a nutshell...
acav out
Zacman

Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts

Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 08:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Great synopsis of a complex series of events.
One interesting discussion about our involvement I ran across had some additional thoughts. During WW II the OSS was working with Ho Chi Mihn who of course was fighting against the Japanese. There was a certain expectation on Ho's part that after the war was over, the US would support him in his goal of uniting the country. While he was a "communist" there is some thought that his vision was not necessarily solidly aligned with the Soviet Union. There is NO doubt he was encouraged by local agents with whom he was working. Whether their statements and assurances to him actually reflected top level policy is hard to say for certain.
At the end of hostilities, the French felt entitled to regain control in their former colony of French Indo-China. The French government made it clear to the US that it expected our assistance in that endeavor, which was not exactly what we wanted to do. To accomplish their goal, the French government made it clear that unless we cooperated with them in regaining control of Indo-China, they would make it very difficult for us in Western Europe.
At that time, both Germany and Austria were divided into four separate regions, occupied by the 4 Allied Powers, and confronting the growing Soviet threat of expansion into all of Europe was view as being a MUCH bigger issue than what happened in Indo-China. The stakes in Europe were higher and the ability to make things difficult for us much easier.
So we threw in our support to the French and events went down hill from there. Having no really good alternatives from which to seek support, Ho threw in his lot with the Soviets, who were MORE than willing to help.
The events in Korea in 1950 especially with China's entrance into the war on the side of North Korea seemed to vindicate the strategy. Once the French were defeated and the country partitioned, we almost had no choice but to back the South Vietnamese government, which did not necessarily have the best interests of the average citizen in mind.
Tom
This is the info i want to hear!
I heard during WW2 the OSS saved Ho's life, he was suffering from maleria, they drooped in with med's.
I also read some where, the U.S. had sent ship loads of armaments, enough to make an assult landing on Japan, as the Bomb was dropped, the need to take japan by infantry assult was gone, these armaments were then sent to Korea and North Vietnam!
spooky6

Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts

Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 12:39 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Arrogance of Western Allies post WW2 (handing Vietnam back to colonial power).
I'm not sure arrogance had anything to do with this. While Rossevelt certainly felt that the era of colonialism was over, many of the nationalist groups in SE Asia (Indochina, Malaya, etc) hadn't been exactly helpful to the war effort against the Japanese. While some fought hard (particularly in China and Korea), others were happy to sit on the fence until it was clear who was winning and who would be the future enemy. This was particularly so with communist-backed groups. Also, while some OSS officers were tight with Ho, not all of them agreed with this policy. Plus, the Vichy French had maintained administrative structures in Indochina which the Free French then took over. So all of this made it quite difficult for the US to just hand over power to nationalist groups (particularly when many had communist colouration). And the British were quite happy (and capable) of re-establishing or maintaining their power in weaker colonies like Malaya and Ceylon.
keenan

Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts

Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 04:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
fears of 'evils of Communism'
ACAV,
I assume since you put the "evils of Communism" in quotes the implacation is either "evil" or the "fear" was unjustified.
According to Rudolph Rummel in his book “Death by Government” in the years 1900-1987 government inflicted deaths aka “Democides” totaled 169,198,000. Of those 110,286,000 deaths were under Communist governance and 2,028,000 were under Democratic regimes. Deaths due to famines caused by Communist government mismanagement killed 54,000,000 in China and Russia alone.
Shaun
Zacman

Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts

Posted: Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 09:54 AM UTC
[quote]
I don't think so, they couldn't even hold India.
Quoted Text
). And the British were quite happy (and capable) of re-establishing or maintaining their power in weaker colonies like Malaya and Ceylon.
I don't think so, they couldn't even hold India.
spooky6

Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts

Posted: Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 11:38 AM UTC
[quote]
Well, either you don't read so well, or you don't understand what 'weak' means. India never was (and isn't now) what anyone would term 'weak'. Currently the 2nd or 3rd largest military, and even at the end of WW2 had a massive army. If you think holding down India was a breeze you need to read up on it. This was always Britain's most volatile colony, and one which was on the verge of going over to the Japanese. It was obvious in the war years that India would have to be given independence.
Britain was broke at the end of WW2 and couldn't afford India. Countries like Malaya and Ceylon were affordable. Ceylon was freed in recognition of outstanding loyalty in WW2 (unlike India), Malaya was hung onto into the '50s. Other colonies like Singapor and Hong Kong were retained even longer.
There's plenty of material on the post-colonial era, and not just on Britain's, so check it out, it's fascinating.
Quoted Text
Quoted Text). And the British were quite happy (and capable) of re-establishing or maintaining their power in weaker colonies like Malaya and Ceylon.
I don't think so, they couldn't even hold India.
Well, either you don't read so well, or you don't understand what 'weak' means. India never was (and isn't now) what anyone would term 'weak'. Currently the 2nd or 3rd largest military, and even at the end of WW2 had a massive army. If you think holding down India was a breeze you need to read up on it. This was always Britain's most volatile colony, and one which was on the verge of going over to the Japanese. It was obvious in the war years that India would have to be given independence.
Britain was broke at the end of WW2 and couldn't afford India. Countries like Malaya and Ceylon were affordable. Ceylon was freed in recognition of outstanding loyalty in WW2 (unlike India), Malaya was hung onto into the '50s. Other colonies like Singapor and Hong Kong were retained even longer.
There's plenty of material on the post-colonial era, and not just on Britain's, so check it out, it's fascinating.
Zacman

Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts

Posted: Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 12:30 PM UTC
[quote]
Three grenerations of my family are from Brtish india, both military and Police force in India, so i have a decent understanding of what went on there.
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted Text). And the British were quite happy (and capable) of re-establishing or maintaining their power in weaker colonies like Malaya and Ceylon.
I don't think so, they couldn't even hold India.
Well, either you don't read so well, or you don't understand what 'weak' means. India never was (and isn't now) what anyone would term 'weak'. Currently the 2nd or 3rd largest military, and even at the end of WW2 had a massive army. If you think holding down India was a breeze you need to read up on it. This was always Britain's most volatile colony, and one which was on the verge of going over to the Japanese. It was obvious in the war years that India would have to be given independence.
Britain was broke at the end of WW2 and couldn't afford India. Countries like Malaya and Ceylon were affordable. Ceylon was freed in recognition of outstanding loyalty in WW2 (unlike India), Malaya was hung onto into the '50s. Other colonies like Singapor and Hong Kong were retained even longer.
There's plenty of material on the post-colonial era, and not just on Britain's, so check it out, it's fascinating.
Three grenerations of my family are from Brtish india, both military and Police force in India, so i have a decent understanding of what went on there.
spooky6

Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts

Posted: Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 05:01 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Three grenerations of my family are from Brtish india, both military and Police force in India, so i have a decent understanding of what went on there.
Good for you. I had no idea of your family history of course. Just went on your prior statement.
vanize

Member Since: January 30, 2006
entire network: 1,954 Posts
KitMaker Network: 121 Posts

Posted: Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 08:48 PM UTC
About the only thing I can add to previous posts (LeFletch and Hathaway have a decent synopsis between the two of them, as do others) is that while Roosevelt supported Ho Chi Mihn, and was politically strong enough to have continued doing so post war (at home and internationally I believe) despite the communist stance and France's threats, he died too soon to do so. Truman didn't have the political clout to support a communist or flout France. It seems Ho Chi Mihn 100% expected US support once WWII was over, and he *may* have even had a gentleman's an arrangement with FDR (which, unfortunately, died with FDR if there was one). Mihn had even adopted a declaration of independence which echos that of the USA's, and clearly appeals to (non french) western powers (esp. the USA) for support and hope of recognition. here is the english version of it:
Ho Chi Mihn had no desire for Vietnam to become a satellite state of the USSR or China (he essentially believed this was equivelent to submitting to another colonial power), and hoped for/expected American recognition and support. He was evidently very dissapointed and disillusioned when this was not forthcoming.
So, I am not saying Truman caused the American involvement in the Vietnam conflict, but essentially his inability to politically support Ho Chi Mihn in the way that Roosevelt likely would have did lay the groundwork by essentially forcing North Vietnam to seek aid and support from the USSR and China. Once this had happened, later US presidents were forced to oppose the spread of "the red threat" and support South Vietnam against unification attempts by the North.
I, for one, think it is a shame America did not at least recognize an independent Vietnam under the basis of that declairation, and that is was hypocritical not too. But that is not the first or last hypocritical action from the US, and in this case it was arguably unavoidable given the loss of the strong and politically potent leadership of FDR.
Quoted Text
All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights."
Those are undeniable truths.
Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellowcitizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.
In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.
They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center, and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.
They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.
They have fettered public opinion; they have practised obscurantism against our people.
To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.
In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land.
They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of banknotes and the export trade.
They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.
They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.
In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese Fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them.
Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri province to the North of Vietnam, more than two million of our fellow citizens died from starvation. On March 9, the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese."
On several occasions before March 9, the Vietminh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Vietminh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Caobang.
Notwithstanding all this, our fellowcitizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese putsch of March 1945, the Vietminh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.
From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession.
After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French.
The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.
For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligation that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Vietnam and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.
The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.
We are convinced that the Allied nations, which at Tehran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Vietnam.
A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eight years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.
For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country-and in fact is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.
Ho Chi Mihn had no desire for Vietnam to become a satellite state of the USSR or China (he essentially believed this was equivelent to submitting to another colonial power), and hoped for/expected American recognition and support. He was evidently very dissapointed and disillusioned when this was not forthcoming.
So, I am not saying Truman caused the American involvement in the Vietnam conflict, but essentially his inability to politically support Ho Chi Mihn in the way that Roosevelt likely would have did lay the groundwork by essentially forcing North Vietnam to seek aid and support from the USSR and China. Once this had happened, later US presidents were forced to oppose the spread of "the red threat" and support South Vietnam against unification attempts by the North.
I, for one, think it is a shame America did not at least recognize an independent Vietnam under the basis of that declairation, and that is was hypocritical not too. But that is not the first or last hypocritical action from the US, and in this case it was arguably unavoidable given the loss of the strong and politically potent leadership of FDR.
tango20

Member Since: August 01, 2004
entire network: 1,281 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts

Posted: Friday, May 12, 2006 - 06:06 PM UTC
Hi all
I have read this thread with great interest,i have seen some programs and read books on the subject over the years .
I have felt perhaps iam wrong that prior to the US involvement Ho chi min was more of a nationalist as opposed to a communist,and that the Nationalist troops fought hard against the Japanese when they invaded Indo China.
However the polititions at the end of the war were blinkerd in the perception of what they could do, i feel that Britain was concerned of the domino effect of the empire being broken up which i feel would have insued if we had put pressure on France to give independance to a country that had shown in effect loyalty during the war.
It was sad state of affairs to see Ho chi mins troops inturned after thet reacted to what they felt was a betrayalby the allies and guarded by there former Japenese adversarys.
I think it was documented that there were American agents closely working with Ho who gave very good intelegence to the politions that to embrace Ho and and support his movement would avert HOs later developed relations with the Soviets.
Frances vailed threats of they would make things difficult for us in Europe ..well we should have called there bluff ...like what were they going to do.
Again it smacks of lack of forsight and not listning to the people on the ground ....god that sounds familier..i know i perhaps over simplify the cause.
From my own experience
The Falklands we had intelegence, sadly we had an election looming and we had un tried military hard ware Harrier, Rapier GTAM
I have read this thread with great interest,i have seen some programs and read books on the subject over the years .
I have felt perhaps iam wrong that prior to the US involvement Ho chi min was more of a nationalist as opposed to a communist,and that the Nationalist troops fought hard against the Japanese when they invaded Indo China.
However the polititions at the end of the war were blinkerd in the perception of what they could do, i feel that Britain was concerned of the domino effect of the empire being broken up which i feel would have insued if we had put pressure on France to give independance to a country that had shown in effect loyalty during the war.
It was sad state of affairs to see Ho chi mins troops inturned after thet reacted to what they felt was a betrayalby the allies and guarded by there former Japenese adversarys.
I think it was documented that there were American agents closely working with Ho who gave very good intelegence to the politions that to embrace Ho and and support his movement would avert HOs later developed relations with the Soviets.
Frances vailed threats of they would make things difficult for us in Europe ..well we should have called there bluff ...like what were they going to do.
Again it smacks of lack of forsight and not listning to the people on the ground ....god that sounds familier..i know i perhaps over simplify the cause.
From my own experience
The Falklands we had intelegence, sadly we had an election looming and we had un tried military hard ware Harrier, Rapier GTAM tango20

Member Since: August 01, 2004
entire network: 1,281 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts

Posted: Friday, May 12, 2006 - 06:24 PM UTC
.
Hi all
I have read this thread with great interest,i have seen some programs and read books on the subject over the years .
I have felt perhaps iam wrong that prior to the US involvement Ho chi min was more of a nationalist as opposed to a communist,and that the Nationalist troops fought hard against the Japanese when they invaded Indo China.
However the polititions at the end of the war were blinkerd in the perception of what they could do, i feel that Britain was concerned of the domino effect of the empire being broken up which i feel would have insued if we had put pressure on France to give independance to a country that had shown in effect loyalty during the war.
It was sad state of affairs to see Ho chi mins troops inturned after thet reacted to what they felt was a betrayalby the allies and guarded by there former Japenese adversarys.
I think it was documented that there were American agents closely working with Ho who gave very good intelegence to the politions that to embrace Ho and and support his movement would avert HOs later developed relations with the Soviets.
Frances vailed threats of they would make things difficult for us in Europe ..well we should have called there bluff ...like what were they going to do.!!!!!!!!!!!
Again it smacks of lack of forsight and not listning to the people on the ground ....god that sounds familier..i know i perhaps over simplify the cause.
From my own experience
The Falklands we had intelelligence, sadly we had an election looming and we had un tried military hard ware Harrier, Rapier GTAM .
Sadley we dismissed the intelligence from an accurate source in fact the individual ended up going from a prestigious Navel position to sailing around the north sea doing fisheries protection,and the conflict insued.
I dont think one political leader died in Vietnam nor did one die in the Falklands,my friends died on the Sir Galahad vaporised,so whats the point of having Intel if you dont use it.
Oh! and she won the election and the Harrier and Rapier system sold like hot cakes....sound familier.
Sorry for my little rant and i know the causes of conflicts are complex but Goverments have to think out side the box they owe that to the people who have to fight them.
Cheers Chris sorry for going off topic
Hi all
I have read this thread with great interest,i have seen some programs and read books on the subject over the years .
I have felt perhaps iam wrong that prior to the US involvement Ho chi min was more of a nationalist as opposed to a communist,and that the Nationalist troops fought hard against the Japanese when they invaded Indo China.
However the polititions at the end of the war were blinkerd in the perception of what they could do, i feel that Britain was concerned of the domino effect of the empire being broken up which i feel would have insued if we had put pressure on France to give independance to a country that had shown in effect loyalty during the war.
It was sad state of affairs to see Ho chi mins troops inturned after thet reacted to what they felt was a betrayalby the allies and guarded by there former Japenese adversarys.
I think it was documented that there were American agents closely working with Ho who gave very good intelegence to the politions that to embrace Ho and and support his movement would avert HOs later developed relations with the Soviets.
Frances vailed threats of they would make things difficult for us in Europe ..well we should have called there bluff ...like what were they going to do.!!!!!!!!!!!
Again it smacks of lack of forsight and not listning to the people on the ground ....god that sounds familier..i know i perhaps over simplify the cause.
From my own experience
The Falklands we had intelelligence, sadly we had an election looming and we had un tried military hard ware Harrier, Rapier GTAM .Sadley we dismissed the intelligence from an accurate source in fact the individual ended up going from a prestigious Navel position to sailing around the north sea doing fisheries protection,and the conflict insued.
I dont think one political leader died in Vietnam nor did one die in the Falklands,my friends died on the Sir Galahad vaporised,so whats the point of having Intel if you dont use it.
Oh! and she won the election and the Harrier and Rapier system sold like hot cakes....sound familier.
Sorry for my little rant and i know the causes of conflicts are complex but Goverments have to think out side the box they owe that to the people who have to fight them.
Cheers Chris sorry for going off topic
IronFelix

Member Since: September 04, 2005
entire network: 29 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 02:28 AM UTC
Well, the North initiated hostilities because the corrupt West-backed South Vietnam dicator refused to hold free elections, because it was feared the Communists would be democratically elected. Ho Chi Minh then felt justified in invading. This led of course, to massive US intervention, until public opinion threw us out on our ears. (The Viet Cong had something to do with that too.)
Arthur

Member Since: March 13, 2002
entire network: 2,454 Posts
KitMaker Network: 489 Posts

Posted: Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 04:09 AM UTC
Try and get a book by Stanley Kernow called Vietnam,it goes back into a thousand years of Vietnamese History,all you need to know is in this book,the Vietnamese talk about the Thousand Tear War,the American involvment only came at the end.
Arthur
Arthur
Zacman

Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts

Posted: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 01:38 PM UTC
I have been going through a lot of books on Vietnam( Mainly looking for pictures, to aid with painting etc) I have noticed a lot of quick facts sections in them, i have seen this statement in all most all the books some thing to the effect " that had Kennedy lived Amercia would have not been involved in the Vietnam war!"
That being the case then how much of south east asia was he willing to let fall to soviet influence! Image the problems Amercia would have had if they chose Laos and Thailand as the main battle grounds. Also you can argue that his failure at that early stage to fully assit south Vietnam lead to major problems later for other administrations!
Any way what do you guys think?
That being the case then how much of south east asia was he willing to let fall to soviet influence! Image the problems Amercia would have had if they chose Laos and Thailand as the main battle grounds. Also you can argue that his failure at that early stage to fully assit south Vietnam lead to major problems later for other administrations!
Any way what do you guys think?
![]() |












