The USA and the Vietminh

[Mynameischarlie]

Many people say that the USA make an mistake in 1945, when they decided to stop their support for the Vietminh.

http://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/AdvisingTheVietMinh.html

[SBL]

It was kind of a no-brainer decision, imo. The war was over, no point in sowing discord with the French.

[DesktopArmor]

The allies supported a lot of communist/socialist resistance movements during WWII. They were willing to give arms to just about every group that wanted to fight the Nazis or the Japanese. Given most of their ideologies, the US and UK were only too glad to dump them at the end of the war. A classic case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'

[SBL]

Seems like a standard convention.
Fixed. No use in pretending this is a purely American practice.

[T.S.C.Plage]

Then you surely can backup your opinion by bringing in some facts and tell me some other countries that have used the same practice in the closer past.

[Winger]

It was kind of a no-brainer decision, imo. The war was over, no point in sowing discord with the French.

Back then Ho Chi Minh saw George Washington as a savior and he was a student of the Declaration of Independence, and he was independent in thought and practice from the Soviet Union.

Where we screwed up was letting the French back in in their efforts to recover their sense of purpose and grandeur. If we had not let them back in the Vietminh would of been an ally to us and never turned to the Soviet Union in the way that it eventually did. They would of been communist one, but at least friendly and more peaceful.

[DesktopArmor]

Then you surely can backup your opinion by bringing in some facts and tell me some other countries that have used the same practice in the closer past.


Israel providing arms to Iran- 1980s

French/British arms to Iraq- 1980s

Western aid to Mobuto

British aid to the mujahadein

Chinese aid to the mujahadein & UNITA

[SBL]

Then you surely can backup your opinion by bringing in some facts and tell me some other countries that have used the same practice in the closer past.
It's not my opinion, it's fact.

Google Lienz Cossacks, Arabs and the post-WWI division of the Middle East, "The Western Betrayal" of Eastern Europe, French and the Tutsis, Soviet betrayal of Somalia in the Ogaden war, etc.

It's a standard practice. Groups or people are supported only as long as they are not a liability- first rule of politics.
Not saying it's a good way to conduct business or that we should give it our stamp of approval in every situation, but it is a reality.
There's no point in pretending that it's exclusive to the US.

[gaijinsamurai]

Well said, Snakebite.

[SBL]

^Thanks, tomodachi.


Back then Ho Chi Minh saw George Washington as a savior and he was a student of the Declaration of Independence, and he was independent in thought and practice from the Soviet Union.

Where we screwed up was letting the French back in in their efforts to recover their sense of purpose and grandeur. If we had not let them back in the Vietminh would of been an ally to us and never turned to the Soviet Union in the way that it eventually did. They would of been communist one, but at least friendly and more peaceful.

IMHO, there was no way we would openly support a communist government, regardless of its relations with the USSR. Look at China, for example.
It would've been a green light for every socialist/communist movement in the 3rd world.

We knew France's game and had more to benefit from a strong, friendly, democratic-capitalist Europe to counter the Soviets. Vietnam was just a backwater by comparison.

[Hollis]

^Thanks, tomodachi.



IMHO, there was no way we would openly support a communist government, regardless of its relations with the USSR. Look at China, for example.
It would've been a green light for every socialist/communist movement in the 3rd world.

We knew France's game and had more to benefit from a strong, friendly, democratic-capitalist Europe to counter the Soviets. Vietnam was just a backwater by comparison.


I think many people fail to understand some of the thinking and motivations of the cold war. Cold as it "kinda was" it was still a war. Due to that thinking some of the choices was bad or real bad.

[Winger]

^Thanks, tomodachi.



IMHO, there was no way we would openly support a communist government, regardless of its relations with the USSR. Look at China, for example.
It would've been a green light for every socialist/communist movement in the 3rd world.

We knew France's game and had more to benefit from a strong, friendly, democratic-capitalist Europe to counter the Soviets. Vietnam was just a backwater by comparison.

Your right about the climate. However, its that same black & white mentality that cost us thousands of dead American soldiers. The Vietnamese ended up being our enemy due to mishandling and fervent mentalities on our side. We dumped them and then cried foul when the NV went running to the Soviets for support. I think JFK was right in wanting to pull out. Our leadership afterwards failed us and put is in a really bad spot. However, who is to say we woudn't of ended up losing that many soldiers somewhere else had Vietnam not happened?

We could of just kept the French out. What they did was post-WWII imperialism and we all but handed Vietnam on a silver platter to them. Hindsite is 20/20.

[SBL]

Your right about the climate. However, its that same black & white mentality that cost us thousands of dead American soldiers. The Vietnamese ended up being our enemy due to mishandling and fervent mentalities on our side. We dumped them and then cried foul when the NV went running to the Soviets for support. I think JFK was right in wanting to pull out.

We could of just kept the French out. What they did was post-WWII imperialism and we all but handed Vietnam on a silver platter to them. Hindsite is 20/20.

Well, like I said, keep the French from doing what they want to do and how do you think they'll pay you back?
It's all about what size fish you want to fry, and imho, shoring-up Western Europe against the Soviets was far more important at the time than whether some tribal-types in Indochina could vote or not.
Besides, I'm not sure we had reason to think the French couldn't handle the Viet Minh without our support. We took a calculated risk and came up short.

[Winger]

We took a calculated risk and came up short.

In the tens of thousands. :-(

[Delta Niner]

In the tens of thousands. :-(
the vietnamese lost more than a million. it might have saved a lot of heartaches if the americans all together just stayed out of indochina.

[Winger]

the vietnamese lost more than a million. it might have saved a lot of heartaches if the americans all together just stayed out of indochina.

I wasn't just counting Americans.

As to staying out of Indochina, if we stayed out completely, the French may have made their way back into Indochina on their own which helped to turn the Vietminh to the Soviets. We would of had to stay involved in making sure that not just us, but any outside influences stayed out of Vietnam.

Heartaches were destined to happen no matter what. Cambodia & Laos, China on Vietnam's border etc. etc.

[Hollis]

the vietnamese lost more than a million. it might have saved a lot of heartaches if the americans all together just stayed out of indochina.


And Russia (SU), China, Eastern Block Countries. etc..........

So you where born last night.

[Superking]

the NORTH vietnamese lost more than a million. it might have saved a lot of heartaches if the PAVN all together just stayed out of the RVN.

Fixed it fer yah!

[Delta Niner]

I wasn't just counting Americans.

As to staying out of Indochina, if we stayed out completely, the French may have made their way back into Indochina on their own which helped to turn the Vietminh to the Soviets. We would of had to stay involved in making sure that not just us, but any outside influences stayed out of Vietnam.

Heartaches were destined to happen no matter what. Cambodia & Laos, China on Vietnam's border etc. etc.

the french was soundly beaten in Dien Bien Phu, they would not been able to make a comeback even if they wanted to. as for Ho Chi Minh he was friendly to the US and was willing to accept US troops to kick the japanese out of his country, and besides the french was not a well liked people in that part of the world anyways. just think of the lost opportunity if the US had supported Ho Chi Minh instead of the corrupt government in South Vietnam. Just like you I was also thinking of the lives that has been lost in that war.

[Hollis]

the french was soundly beaten in Dien Bien Phu, they would not been able to make a comeback even if they wanted to. as for Ho Chi Minh he was friendly to the US and was willing to accept US troops to kick the japanese out of his country, and besides the french was not a well liked people in that part of the world anyways. just think of the lost opportunity if the US had supported Ho Chi Minh instead of the corrupt government in South Vietnam. Just like you I was also thinking of the lives that has been lost in that war.


um boko dinky dou............ The lives would have been saved had it not been for many other factors that you seem to ignore.

[Delta Niner]

um boko dinky dou............ The lives would have been saved had it not been for many other factors that you seem to ignore.

yeah like not being there :)

[Delta Niner]

Fixed it fer yah!

bro its their country and when the US supported the christian minority in the south they viewed the US as another foreign power out to subjugate them like the french.

[Delta Niner]

And Russia (SU), China, Eastern Block Countries. etc..........

So you where born last night.

i was not, how about you, were you born last night?

[Hollis]

i was not, how about you, were you born last night?


toi tieng biet, and you? BTW, cut the BS, I have and had many friends who are Biet, some ever were Bac Biet....... so you tell me. You have perked my interest.

[Hollis]

bro its their country and when the US supported the christian minority in the south they viewed the US as another foreign power out to subjugate them like the french.


And the Bac Biet took mass before going into battle.

[Delta Niner]

toi tieng biet, and you? BTW, cut the BS, I have and had many friends who are Biet, some ever were Bac Biet....... so you tell me. You have perked my interest.

i'll send a PM

[Winger]

the french was soundly beaten in Dien Bien Phu, they would not been able to make a comeback even if they wanted to. (Think before Dien Bien Phu, just as the French returned in strength, without their return, DBP wouldn't have happened)as for Ho Chi Minh he was friendly to the US and was willing to accept US troops to kick the japanese out of his country, and besides the french was not a well liked people in that part of the world anyways. just think of the lost opportunity if the US had supported Ho Chi Minh instead of the corrupt government in South Vietnam. (That would of been the right thing to do. Had we supported them after WWII and not let the French back in however, other situations may have arisen that were beyond the control of any powers. Who is to say Communism would not of taken hold in the way it did in Laos and Cambodia anyways? Indochina was due for some strife anyway you look at it) Just like you I was also thinking of the lives that has been lost in that war.

message too short

[SBL]

the french was soundly beaten in Dien Bien Phu, they would not been able to make a comeback even if they wanted to. as for Ho Chi Minh he was friendly to the US and was willing to accept US troops to kick the japanese out of his country, and besides the french was not a well liked people in that part of the world anyways. just think of the lost opportunity if the US had supported Ho Chi Minh instead of the corrupt government in South Vietnam. Just like you I was also thinking of the lives that has been lost in that war.
You don't really seem to grasp the fact that given the choice between supporting the French and the anti-communist south, vs. supporting the openly socialist Ho Chi Minh the only choice was the former.
As I've said before, had the US green-lit Ho Chi Minh, it would've set a very difficult precedent concerning socialist movements, something the USSR would doubtless take full advantage of.
Had I been around at that time, I would've probably made the same decisions.

[sct1886]

Many people say that the USA make an mistake in 1945, when they decided to stop their support for the Vietminh.

http://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/AdvisingTheVietMinh.html

The real mistake is upon the so called League of Nations for not recognizing there was a problem when Ho Chi Minh addressed them in 1919. So much history and we still make the same fundamental mistakes.

[Mastermind]

Winger and SBL have hit the nail on the head, so-to-speak. The immediate post war atmosphere was very confused. We had just given the Soviets billions of dollars in aid...were they our moratal enemy? We had liberated the French and they were particularly sensitive to the fact of foreigners salvaging them. We were coming to realize the real damage the Japanese had done was with their implanting the concept of a colonial free Asian sphere. Although the Japanese were very hypocritical about the inception of the Asian Co-prosperity concecpt, the idea caught on like wild fire in India, the Phillipines, china and Indochina. It did not help in Indochina that the French began re-establsihing thier domination with a vengance. A great many Vietnamese did not welcome that suboridination the French insisted on.

Ho was, in my opinion, neither a communist or a capitalist. In fact, he had tried several times to reconcile the French position for a peaceful realization of Vietnamese independance...rather along the lines of Ghandi in India...but with a pistol instead of a weaver board. The French resisted and with some abject stupidity, I might add. They simply could not bring themselves to treat with the Vietnamese as equals. They were, as usual, duplicitous in their negotiations and dealings with their subject people. They not only displayed astounding disrespect for Ho and his entourage, they made the massive mistake of underestimating him and the will of the communists to capitalize on any weakness or rift. There was a religious aspect to the mess, also, involving Bhuddists resisting moves by the Catholics to take more and more people under their influence and not using means that were all that Christian.

Ultimately, a kind of perfect storm was created by the conditions the French and the Americans helped establish. I personally believe there were several golden moments the Western influences could have used to avoid the final outcome of the long drawn out war. I do not believe Ho was a willing communist convert. I think he was first and foremost a Vietnames before he was anything. But, I think he was basically driven to the communists by desperation - clutching at straws. The communists gladly embraced him, joined with him in his and his people's misery and formed a workable alignment.

Sadly, the war, in my considered opinion, was avoidable. I think Ho was given resources by the communists, and yet, he was distinctly embarrassed and even disgusted with their tactics. But, I think he knew there really was no other way to achieve Vietnamese independance...any form of government was acceptable, so long as it was an all Vietnamese government.

There is so much more to the complex man Ho Chi Minh and situation surrounding Him and the Vietnamese experience...tons - and it all makes wonderful reading. There simply is no way to re-iterate enough of it here for a full explanation resulting in adequate understanding.

[domokun]

Mastermind in my view your post sums up well on Ho Chi Minh and and his motives. Like Cuban revolution Vietnamese revolution was pushed by west to communism and Soviet support. South Vietnam was set up by French when they left and later backed up by USA. In my opinion western participation in essentially Vietnamese civil war was doomed from beginning. From (north) Vietnamese point of view it was war for independence and civil war against corrupted south Vietnamese administration, that was still colonial rule by bit looser chain. South Vietnam's administrations didn't work for good nation, but for their personal good. Western and Soviet point of view war was just another 3rd world proxy war, difference on Vietnam to other proxy wars mostly direct participation of USA and few allies.

Greatest tragedies of Vietnam conflict are huge death toll of Vietnamese people. Viet Cong suffered huge casualties while fighting Americans, they didn't win pretty much any thing tactically, form propaganda point of view Tet was huge success. Viet Cong on other hand did it's own purges and psy-war ops with sheer terror tactics towards civilians.

[Mastermind]

Yes, I didn't want to lengthen my post to include the massive influence ont he war of the corruption in the South VN gvt. And, the fantastic atrocity of the US backing the assassination of the VN President...In fact, blatantly issuing the go-ahead orders! It was insanity at it's most definitive level.

I have read much on the subject and I am constantly amazed at the blunders and out right stupidity of the players involved...why the subject so fascinates me. And the people responsible were some of the brightest people on the planet. And their lack of understanding was so profound as to give me the creeps thinking the same type "smart-guys" are in charge of our governments to this very day.

[Hollis]

I responded to Delta Niner PM with this;

Also to understand that conflict and others, you need to understand the thinking and tactics of the cold war. This was on a global scale and other nations where involved.

There was a collision, the communist block and western block countries. If communism would have stayed out of Viet-Nam so would the west.

Also if you study a little about Ernesto Guevarra and understood his goals of global liberation, then you have you answer on why the US was in Viet-Nam. Viet-Nam was also about the entire region.


Pretty much what is being said. I am glad the cold war ended, or has it?

[domokun]

I've read quite much on Vietnam war too, still there are lot books that I'm still seeking for lot more that have been recommended here and couple other forums. A Bright Shining Lie opened my eyes to corruption issue South Vietnamese gov. and military. The book is brilliant and movie adaptation is pretty good too.

The "top dog" of those "smart guys" Robert McNamara, put out good post analysis of war in documentary Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert McNamara. As usual the real issues came clear to those that made decisions after war.

[Delta Niner]

Winger and SBL have hit the nail on the head, so-to-speak. The immediate post war atmosphere was very confused. We had just given the Soviets billions of dollars in aid...were they our moratal enemy? We had liberated the French and they were particularly sensitive to the fact of foreigners salvaging them. We were coming to realize the real damage the Japanese had done was with their implanting the concept of a colonial free Asian sphere. Although the Japanese were very hypocritical about the inception of the Asian Co-prosperity concecpt, the idea caught on like wild fire in India, the Phillipines, china and Indochina. It did not help in Indochina that the French began re-establsihing thier domination with a vengance. A great many Vietnamese did not welcome that suboridination the French insisted on.

Ho was, in my opinion, neither a communist or a capitalist. In fact, he had tried several times to reconcile the French position for a peaceful realization of Vietnamese independance...rather along the lines of Ghandi in India...but with a pistol instead of a weaver board. The French resisted and with some abject stupidity, I might add. They simply could not bring themselves to treat with the Vietnamese as equals. They were, as usual, duplicitous in their negotiations and dealings with their subject people. They not only displayed astounding disrespect for Ho and his entourage, they made the massive mistake of underestimating him and the will of the communists to capitalize on any weakness or rift. There was a religious aspect to the mess, also, involving Bhuddists resisting moves by the Catholics to take more and more people under their influence and not using means that were all that Christian.

Ultimately, a kind of perfect storm was created by the conditions the French and the Americans helped establish. I personally believe there were several golden moments the Western influences could have used to avoid the final outcome of the long drawn out war. I do not believe Ho was a willing communist convert. I think he was first and foremost a Vietnames before he was anything. But, I think he was basically driven to the communists by desperation - clutching at straws. The communists gladly embraced him, joined with him in his and his people's misery and formed a workable alignment.

Sadly, the war, in my considered opinion, was avoidable. I think Ho was given resources by the communists, and yet, he was distinctly embarrassed and even disgusted with their tactics. But, I think he knew there really was no other way to achieve Vietnamese independance...any form of government was acceptable, so long as it was an all Vietnamese government.

There is so much more to the complex man Ho Chi Minh and situation surrounding Him and the Vietnamese experience...tons - and it all makes wonderful reading. There simply is no way to re-iterate enough of it here for a full explanation resulting in adequate understanding.

i could have used your response as a basis for my report way back when i was still in school. :)

[Mastermind]

I responded to Delta Niner PM with this;

Also to understand that conflict and others, you need to understand the thinking and tactics of the cold war. This was on a global scale and other nations where involved.

There was a collision, the communist block and western block countries. If communism would have stayed out of Viet-Nam so would the west.

Also if you study a little about Ernesto Guevarra and understood his goals of global liberation, then you have you answer on why the US was in Viet-Nam. Viet-Nam was also about the entire region.


Pretty much what is being said. I am glad the cold war ended, or has it?
I agree with the global concept. But, I really wonder if the west would have stayed out if the communists had.

I have come to a belief the west was using the Vietnamese situation as a kind of "straw man" victim so they could move in and act like good guys rescuing these poor people from the evil commies. The real situation in the area was far more complex than that and it most certainly was salvagable to everyone's satisfaction early on. I was surprised to learn that the Vietnamese despised the chinese, and had been greatly abused by them for many centuries before the modern conflict. The Russian were far more acceptable to them as an ally and in fact, the Chinese were hardly any help to the Vietnamese effort in the north. The Chinese merely capitialized on a bad situation and made good profit in the enterprise as well as arms merchants and passage providers...let us not forget the on going distrust the Chinese were having with the Russians throughout the ordeal.

It is my opinion, the West deliberately developed the situation as it turned out, as of about 1963 in order to establish an anti communist front. The entire south west pacific rim was a juicy plum ready for communist development and some sort of anti-communist presence was desperately needed. As events evolved, Vietnam became that most convenient outpost. I point out, the Tonkin gulf Incident was clearly quite orchestrated directly from the White House...now, there can be little doubt of that.

I think this need for a confrontation spot is why we continued to back the outlandishly corrupt governments of South Vietnam and even the Phillipines...remember Marcos? The public here in the USA was having a terible time reconciling that...Why were we backing these Mafia-like crime bosses? But, the WH could hardly answer honestly.

Another reason for Vietnam was the great needs of the American defense establishment. Everything at the time was going to the grand scale warrior toy chest...with Russia the distant boogyman for the ICBM, the sub and the strategic Bombers. But, American ground forces were practically unemployed except for the little shooting war in SE Asia. The lack of a real need for American forces in Europe was becoming ever more painfully difficult to conceal. So, I personally believe the defense dept developed an increasing motivation for the "nice little" hot war there. Soon, all the helicopters, ACAVs and Fighter Bombers they wanted were theirs...development grants also accellerated. Don't forget Mcnamara's roots in Litton Industries. He and his cronies made a massive fortune out of that little war.

But, I think the situation finally just snow-balled totally out of control as the casualties on both sides increased as the years went by. There was never going to be an end to it without mass extinction of just about everyone in the north..and the western nations namely the USA...were just not willing to do that...although, they gave it a pretty good try.

The only solution was to finally cut our losses and run. And, as usual, the little people paid the price for the miscalculations of the "Big Brains". 55,000 dead Americans and more counting the dead of our allies and you can't even count the dead in the north and the south. Millions it is believed. What a tragedy and all for absolutely nothing.

[Winger]

i could have used your response as a basis for my report way back when i was still in school. :)

No joke. Mastermind could of taught my elective History of Vietnam at the Academy better than my instructor. p-)

[JJB1970]

Interesting thread. There are quite a few thought provoking responses--Snake Bite, Hollis, and Mastermind in particular.

I have a comment/question... Isn't the original question that started this thread a bit "loaded?"

Here is the OP's statement: "Many people say that the USA make an mistake in 1945, when they decided to stop their support for the Vietminh."

I think the question assumes that the U.S. support for the Vietminh was genuine--that is that from 1941-45 the United States was concerned with defeating the Japanese and not at all concerned with the agenda of the Vietnamese communists. At that time the French could not be any help as we had a tough time working with the Vichy government. Then the French were crushed by the Japanese in the spring of '45 and therefore we had no natural allies in Vietnam and we were left with having to support the Vietminh.

Is it not the case that our relationship with the Vietminh prior to the defeat of the Japanese was one of convenience rather than support of their political agenda (communism)?

While Roosevelt supported self-determination for the colonies as an ideal, it becomes clear that in 1945-46 the greatest worry for the Americans was that of keeping Europe stable after a very long and destructive war. Towards that goal, allowing the French to have Indochina seemed a small price to pay compared to the number of lives lost in the WWII European Theater. After the carnage of WWII, watching France slip through the cracks was not an option--and so we supported the French all the way to Dienbienphu.

What I am suggesting is that U.S. support and allegiance were with our European allies (the French)--not the Vietminh. The U.S. and the Vietminh were fighting the Japanese, but I am not sure that made the U.S. and Vietminh "allies" by any stretch. I think our support to the Vietnamese communists was aimed at the defeat of the Axis Powers and nothing more.

Sorry for the long winded questions/statements/opinions, but the initial question makes an assumption that I am not sure of in the first place.

Can anyone shed any more light on this? What have I left out?

Many Thanks.

[Delta Niner]

You don't really seem to grasp the fact that given the choice between supporting the French and the anti-communist south, vs. supporting the openly socialist Ho Chi Minh the only choice was the former.
As I've said before, had the US green-lit Ho Chi Minh, it would've set a very difficult precedent concerning socialist movements, something the USSR would doubtless take full advantage of.
Had I been around at that time, I would've probably made the same decisions.

you mean after all that the things that you knew now, you would have still chosen to proceed the same way? is that it?

like mcnamara?, and after 30 years and many lives lost, write a book and apologize for the actions taken at that time.

[Hollis]

I agree with the global concept. But, I really wonder if the west would have stayed out if the communists had.




Look at other countries that the US stayed out of. Countries that were on the verge of going communist, the West got involved. Communist insurgencies where hitting countries which had week governments and internal issues. Also as I mention it was not just about Viet-Nam but all of Indonesia and South China sea countries. In some way the Domino theory was what it was about. To slow communist expansion.

[Delta Niner]

Look at other countries that the US stayed out of. Countries that were on the verge of going communist, the West got involved. Communist insurgencies where hitting countries which had week governments and internal issues. Also as I mention it was not just about Viet-Nam but all of Indonesia and South China sea countries. In some way the Domino theory was what it was about. To slow communist expansion.

Hollis,
with all due respect, i think the domino theory was over rated. you see, the communist did win in indochina but it never stayed there and never got beyond the borders.

[Hollis]

Hollis,
with all due respect, i think the domino theory was over rated. you see, the communist did win in indochina but it never stayed there and never got beyond the borders.


Yes it was over rated it was more a analogy but look at Viet-Nam, when did they win? Look at the time line. Actually there is some bases of domino theory, go to Central American. The communist where trying to establish a threshold and expand into other countries.

You have to view this over a period of 30 + years. Communist was very much into expanding their influence. By the 70's it was losing speed and influence. By the end of the 80's,,,,,, nada.

Plus people at that time that where looking at communists expansion, started looking at them in the 20's. Russia (SU) was a major psychological win, it encourage communist through out the world, "That a better world is in birth." Communism was pretty much a religion, evangelism was aggressively done, via revolution. Much of the criticism on oppressive governments by communist where correct. Global "Liberation" was their goal. Ho was a believer, so was Lenin, Mao and others.


Again Viet-Nam was just one country in many. Chile, El Salvado, Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatamala, and the list goes on. Even revolutionary movements in the US, Canada, Europe. Viet-Nam was not just about Viet-Nam, in the view of Western and Communist countries. Probably only for NVN and SVN it was about Viet-Nam.

[JJB1970]

Yes it was over rated it was more a analogy but look at Viet-Nam, when did they win?

Interesting. It leads me to ask this question: Is there any reason to think that if the whole of Vietnam had turned Communist in say 1946 or 1954-57 that the rest of S.E. Asia wouldn't have suffered further and stronger "communist agitation?"

I haven't read much (not much in depth) about the internal politics of the Vietnamese communist government, but it seems if the communists had been victorious at an earlier date, the "domino theory" might well have been fulfilled in SE Asia--or is that way too simplistic? Is there anything factual that suggests that it would have stopped at Vietnam?

[domokun]

Like Hollis and Master mind have already said Cold War was driven by it's own mindset.

Way I see things seed of cold war were planted on 20's and 30's, Komintern international Communist organization preached about global revolution. WWII stopped or slowed "progress" of cold war for little less than decade. Soviet set up their buffer against another catastrophic invasion by subjucating eastern Europe. American Marshall plan set up basis on USA alliances, it wasn't all about generosity as some folks still insist. Reasons both sides actions was early suspicion it turned to full paranoia, defining emotion of cold war.

Both capitalist/democratic west and communist east, did lot action to witch opponent did reaction... followed seemingly endless loop of reactions of reactions. Arms race and domino theory are best examples of those.

Domino theory partially true, not completely. Both sides seeked out for potential allies, who usually had their own troubles with neighbors, other side helped first country and other that country's neighbor, mostly help was military aid in operational planing and defense or better in this context war material. Both sides had huge amounts of resources turned to military sector and plenty of stuff to give. 3rd world had lot border wars fueled by western and Soviet support, funny that alliances could turn over night in certain cases due to revolutions or coups. This is part of domino theory that worked. The part that was bit flawed in my opinion is motives, basically huge scale miss-understanding both sides actions were result of realpolitik, the world revolution was pretty dead on Soviet side as Komintern had really been alienated from core parts of real socialism. Che Guevara was an idealist and he believed in global revolution, most of communist leaders were lot more realistic over foreign policy. Both sides looked up to maintain status quo.

Reason for those Che T-shirts is his idealism and actions as rebel, the thing in those that annoys me is fact that there are idiots wearing those who don't an idea who really was... teenage rebellion. Those hippies don't realize that he was actually quite important assymetric warfare theorist and militant back to his spine. :(

If Soviets got too friendly with some government, west aranged for usually military coup. Sometimes west did this if an ally did something too independent. Soviets on other hand sponsored revolution and guerilla warfare on western allies, and inter party coups in their own satelites. The funding of internal and external wars of assorted countries is usually called mig/dollar diplomacy.

Arms race on other hand was based bit simpler rationale. Soviet or western often got information over new weapons developments on other side, reaction was to develop bit better counter weapon. They were seemingly superior on some sector, gap must be closed and turned to our advantage.

I see both sides of Cold War equally guilty to how it done back then. Yes, it's ironic that communism or better term is real socialism, as communism theoretical ideal that cannot be reached, liberty that was their objective always ended up opposite: supression of individual rights, political rights, lack of liberty, government terror and genocides.

I'm glad those days are over, no more hair trigger nuke Mexican stand off... end of our species in 20 short minutes.

[domokun]

Interesting. It leads me to ask this question: Is there any reason to think that if the whole of Vietnam had turned Communist in say 1946 or 1954-57 that the rest of S.E. Asia wouldn't have suffered further and stronger "communist agitation?"

I haven't read much (not much in depth) about the internal politics of the Vietnamese communist government, but it seems if the communists had been victorious at an earlier date, the "domino theory" might well have been fulfilled in SE Asia--or is that way too simplistic? Is there anything factual that suggests that it would have stopped at Vietnam?

Former French Indochina fell to communism. Laos was like Vietnam backed mostly by soviets.

Cambodian military dictatorship fell to Khmer Rouge, the Red Khmer, most vicious and brutal regime of history. They were communist and backed up by China, enemy of Vietnam. Pol Pot and his crew were particularily hypocrite SOB's, educated at French universities. Yet they banned universities in their pursuit of ideal farm worker state. They reserved all pork produced under their rule to Muslim minority. They emptied their capital by summary order, forced people to country side, mostly to forced labor and starvation. Pretty much only thing they left Phonom Phen was prison for political prisoners. They managed kill around third of Cambodians, by starvation and executions between 1973-79. They ruled the country completely from 1975.

Ironically Vietnams communists government intervened by military force after four years of Khmer Rouge reign of terror and madness. After that USA and China backed 'em up in both by supplies and in political level, they held Cambodian seat in UN until late 80's. Vietnamese installed new moderate communist gov and Vietnam fought against 'em until early 90's when country democratizied on orderly fashion while maintaining relative peace.

[SBL]

you mean after all that the things that you knew now, you would have still chosen to proceed the same way? is that it?

like mcnamara?, and after 30 years and many lives lost, write a book and apologize for the actions taken at that time.

No. I said knowing what they knew at the time, I would've proceeded much the same way.

[Hollis]

Interesting. It leads me to ask this question: Is there any reason to think that if the whole of Vietnam had turned Communist in say 1946 or 1954-57 that the rest of S.E. Asia wouldn't have suffered further and stronger "communist agitation?"

I haven't read much (not much in depth) about the internal politics of the Vietnamese communist government, but it seems if the communists had been victorious at an earlier date, the "domino theory" might well have been fulfilled in SE Asia--or is that way too simplistic? Is there anything factual that suggests that it would have stopped at Vietnam?


I believe I have already answered your question:

"Again Viet-Nam was just one country in many. Chile, El Salvado, Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatamala, and the list goes on. Even revolutionary movements in the US, Canada, Europe. Viet-Nam was not just about Viet-Nam, in the view of Western and Communist countries. Probably only for NVN and SVN it was about Viet-Nam."


Viet-Nam was not just about Viet-Nam.

Look at the rise and fall of the Soviet (sic, Communits et tal) Influence on a global stage.

The International was more than a song, while was a single minded, single group of communists it was a attitude the was key to being a communist, again: "Global Liberation"

Socialists was part of that "Movement/influence" to some degree, but not necessary. sic, Baathists,


On choices, it is like getting mug, what choices does one have. One choice they do not have is getting mugged. In the cold war, choices were limited ofter from bad to worse. Again, there was another side, and they were making choices too, and acting on their interests.

[Mynameischarlie]

The Domino theory: One fall after one
Hmm...

Vietnam: (Mahayana-)Buddhist-Confucian society (Historically strong will to resist foreign forces; Chinese influence)

Laos: Theradava-Buddhism society(OK strong Vietnamese & Chinese influence; Thailand could have done more against the Vietnamese & Chinese influence, but it didn't.)

Cambodia: Theradava-Buddhist society (strong animosity against Vietnam; Remember: Southern Vietnam used to be Khmer territory; strong (but not politically) monarchy - Vietnamese monarchy lost public support already at the beginning of the French rule)

Phillipines: Christian society (Spanish & American influence)

Indonesia: Moderate Muslimic State with Chinese minority (already occupied with problems of national identity.)

Malaysia: Moderate Muslimic State with Chinese minority (The UK has already done its work: Hearts & Minds.)

Thailand: Theradava-Buddhist society with assimilated Chinese minority(could withstand colonialism; strong monarchy)

Singapur: Chinese majority, but as long as Malaysia & Indonesia don't fall, Singapur won't. The Singapurean elites are all British educated.

:bash:
The guys, who came up with this theory, had no cultural understanding of SE Asia. Also installing a Catholic as a president of a predominantly Buddhist society is the most stupid thing during Cold War.

[JJB1970]

I believe I have already answered your question:

"Again Viet-Nam was just one country in many. Chile, El Salvado, Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatamala, and the list goes on. Even revolutionary movements in the US, Canada, Europe. Viet-Nam was not just about Viet-Nam, in the view of Western and Communist countries. Probably only for NVN and SVN it was about Viet-Nam."

Viet-Nam was not just about Viet-Nam.

Yes sir. I was just looking to look at the '40s and '50s rather than the '60s and '70s--and your answer is essentially the one that makes more sense to me than the alternatives.

Reason being is that there seems to be a "lament" that the U.S. didn't support the Vietminh and I think that sentiment is in the OPs statement back at the beginning. But, I can't figure out why in the world the U.S. would have or should have supported the Vietminh back in 1945. It seems like nonsense to suggest that we should have supported the communists rather than the French.

SnakeBiteLeader has pointed out a couple of times that looking at the situation from the state of affairs 1945 can easily lead one down the same path--and I am essentially agreeing with his statement (I think it was well said).

What I am getting at is the suggestion that the U.S. screwed up by not supporting the Vietminh. I don't think the U.S. necessarily screwed up in that--I am lead to believe that the U.S. did not have any really attractive options at the end of the Second World War--but the choice between the French or the Vietminh was an obvious one. The later events in SE Asia mentioned by Domokun seem to support our choice of the French over the Vietminh.

Sorry. I am just trying to understand the OP's point and wondering why in the h*ll we would have supported the Vietminh?

Just asking for possible insight into that and wondering if there is something I am missing because I see it as impossible.

Many Thanks.

[Hollis]

The guys, who came up with this theory, had no cultural understanding of SE Asia. Also installing a Catholic as a president of a predominantly Buddhist society is the most stupid thing during Cold War.



Again this was a global issue, not regional or with in one country.

Also it is a analogy at best. Trying to take a complex situation and make it simple to understand. That is why it is not a all encompassing explanation.

Don't use :bash: in a discussion.

[Hollis]

Sorry. I am just trying to understand the OP's point and wondering why in the h*ll we would have supported the Vietminh?



I agree with the tragedy of the time, the needless destruction and loss of lives, along with the idea it set the world back 50 years.


After WWII the West's Military's were being reduced, then compare that to the SU's.


Very simply stated, the West could not support the Vietminh. There were, as one might say, predetermined choices. The SU was very much invested in making the world communist. From their point of view that was a good thing to do. From the Western Point of view it was unacceptable.

On one front we had Korea, on another the Hungarian Revolt. That continued on a global level.

If Ho Chi Minh would have taken a more centralist path, then that would have altered the choices. He may have felt that his choices where already defined for him and was limited to them.

[T.S.C.Plage]

If Ho Chi Minh would have taken a more centralist path, then that would have altered the choices. He may have felt that his choices where already defined for him and was limited to them.

How much more "central" should he have been? As Ho announced the founding of the DRV he did it with the words.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You may know these words because they are taken from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

Ho wasn't one of these communist "block-heads". He was open minded and more then willing to have an alliance with the USA. He even wouldn't have had problems if Vietnam would have become a US protectorate like the Philippines.
He knew exactly that a friendship with the CCCP would be very weak and linked with a lot of terms/rules. His opinion about China was even worse for obvious reasons.
During that time Ho even told a Major of the OSS that he was rather expecting US support for the independence then any help by the CCCP.

If the USA would have taken this alternative it may would have been the chance to establish a counterpart to the other communist regimes. This may would have been a lightfire for a lot of other countries of the communist block and would have showed them an other opportunity besides joining the Warsaw-Pakt or at least be supported by it.
But we will never know because some "war-happy" politicians decided diffrent for what ever reason. Somehow I can't aware the feeling that there already were some people in the US politics or at least had much influence to it which already had noticed that war is a big business and that they can make a lot of money with it so they simply pushed some buttons to make an alliance between the both countries impossible.

To say that the USA didn't take this chance because of the growing communist-block and the fear of it is simply wrong because during this time there was no Cuba or what ever on the horizon. Not even the Korean-War had started.

Just my opinion!


Greetz
Plage

[Winger]

How much more "central" should he have been? As Ho announced the founding of the DRV he did it with the words.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You may know these words because they are taken from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

Ho wasn't one of these communist "block-heads". He was open minded and more then willing to have an alliance with the USA. He even wouldn't have had problems if Vietnam would have become a US protectorate like the Philippines.
He knew exactly that a friendship with the CCCP would be very weak and linked with a lot of terms/rules. His opinion about China was even worse for obvious reasons.
During that time Ho even told a Major of the OSS that he was rather expecting US support for the independence then any help by the CCCP.

If the USA would have taken this alternative it may would have been the chance to establish a counterpart to the other communist regimes. This may would have been a lightfire for a lot of other countries of the communist block and would have showed them an other opportunity besides joining the Warsaw-Pakt or at least be supported by it.
But we will never know because some "war-happy" politicians decided diffrent for what ever reason. Somehow I can't aware the feeling that there already were some people in the US politics or at least had much influence to it which already had noticed that war is a big business and that they can make a lot of money with it so they simply pushed some buttons to make an alliance between the both countries impossible.

To say that the USA didn't take this chance because of the growing communist-block and the fear of it is simply wrong because during this time there was no Cuba or what ever on the horizon. Not even the Korean-War had started.

Just my opinion!


Greetz
Plage

Yup. The OSS rendered assistance and personally delivered him a copy of the Declaration! p-)

But, once the Japanese were defeated we bolted pretty quickly.

[Mastermind]

I think the motivations of all parties concerned, can never be properly figured out. What groups were pulling Vietnam, what their motivations were and exactly how much compression/tension they practically exerted is something it would take decades and a whole university of historical investigators to figure out.

Personally, I think the French and the Americans made blunders on a gargantuan scale. The Communists and the Religionists and the Ho Chi Minh-ists all congealed into a rather unique style of leadership and collective effort that stymied the West...it was absolutely incredible the amount of force those people managed to resist...the collective pain they endured was...in my study...unprecidented in modern history. The West had certainly never expected the Ho government could survive such an onslaught for such a long period of time and still remain viable in government, world politics and on the battle field...this is why the Tet offensive was such a shock. There were only so many adults alive and of viable combat age in that country...had we not practically killed them or otherwise incapacitated them? And look at the tunnel systems that existed in city size right under the very noses of the US military commander, practically for the entire duration of the war.

I think the experienceof Vietnam and the behavior of the people of the North should have taught the world a very vauable lesson by example. That if a people are determined enough, all the technology and power in the world will not be enough to dissuade them.

That said, I have to wonder how Hitler and his minions would have dealt with the situation if they had the same power and technology as the Americans.

It is my belief, the North Vietnamese developed a very accurate understanding of the American prime weakness...that is we like to be the "Good Guys" and we never were prepared to really do what the North Vietnamese were going to require us to do to actually win. That is to become so brutal as to reduce them to the stone age...and to kill probably half or more of their entire population.

Ho chi Minh understood that all they really had to do was not lose...to continue the war for as long as it took. The US, on the otherhand, could not just "not lose"...we had to win eventually. As long as the North refused to render the situation down to a decision...they could predict victory with almost mathmatical certainty. Ho knew we could not keep destroying $25,000.00 infrastructure with 100 million dollars worth of bombs and airplanes shot down on every mission.

[JJB1970]

Thanks all for your responses. Gives me food for thought since I was 5 years old when Saigon fell to North Vietnam.

In 1945 Europe, the Allies were already scrapping with communist forces. Consider Tito in Yugoslavia and the Trieste issues and there was the matter of the Greek Civil War. Plus, in Asia, the United States had been supporting Chiang Kai-shek in China--while fully expecting the war against the Chinese communists would pick up again following the Japanese surrender. So, the perceived threat of spreading communism was very real from a 1944-45 point of view. The 1945-50 period would just deliver more bad news of communist takeovers and the Western inability to counter them.

I suppose I'll have to look deeper at the early career of Ho Chi Minh and the actual political platform (and most importantly the political methods) of the Vietminh and adjust my thoughts and opinions accordingly!:)

Thanks Hollis and T.S.C. Plage for your thoughts.

[Hollis]

Plage, I think the cold war mentality was more a form of some kind of global insanity.

Centralist would be something not anyway connected to Marx, Lenin etc. BTW my understanding Lenin was pretty pragmatic also (Hammer, by Armand Hammer).


Also, regards to your last sentence, Google the Palmer raid, the Western support of the counter revolution in the new Soviet Union........ etc.

This issue is global and over a period of time, probably from the French Commune on.


On being wrong, Maybe, maybe not. This is my recollection of the events, I can be off. Also in Historical studies, right and wrong can be very elusive.

I don't think you adequately demonstrated how I was wrong. Also some of your phrases smacked of "political junglism" such as: ""war-happy" politicians". Over simplification of complex events does more a disservice than anything else.


My understanding the Eastern European countries DID NOT have a choice in joining the Warsaw pack. see Hungarian revolt.

You seem to place too much blame on the US. The US is not more powerful than all the countries combine. The US does not control the world. I think a lot of people have a very over inflated sense of how much power the US actually has.

[Delta Niner]

Yes sir. I was just looking to look at the '40s and '50s rather than the '60s and '70s--and your answer is essentially the one that makes more sense to me than the alternatives.

Reason being is that there seems to be a "lament" that the U.S. didn't support the Vietminh and I think that sentiment is in the OPs statement back at the beginning. But, I can't figure out why in the world the U.S. would have or should have supported the Vietminh back in 1945. It seems like nonsense to suggest that we should have supported the communists rather than the French.

SnakeBiteLeader has pointed out a couple of times that looking at the situation from the state of affairs 1945 can easily lead one down the same path--and I am essentially agreeing with his statement (I think it was well said).

What I am getting at is the suggestion that the U.S. screwed up by not supporting the Vietminh. I don't think the U.S. necessarily screwed up in that--I am lead to believe that the U.S. did not have any really attractive options at the end of the Second World War--but the choice between the French or the Vietminh was an obvious one. The later events in SE Asia mentioned by Domokun seem to support our choice of the French over the Vietminh.

Sorry. I am just trying to understand the OP's point and wondering why in the h*ll we would have supported the Vietminh?

Just asking for possible insight into that and wondering if there is something I am missing because I see it as impossible.

Many Thanks.

choosing the french colonialist over the freedom of viet-nam, was way off the mark of the US Constitution that guarantees freedom from all oppression. i am sure i am right about that. it was probably the mentality of the leadership at that time that led to that long protracted war. like choosing the european ally over the Vietnamese despite the fact that theirs was a rightious plea for freedom.

[Winger]

choosing the french colonialist over the freedom of viet-nam, was way off the mark of the US Constitution that guarantees freedom from all oppression. i am sure i am right about that. it was probably the mentality of the leadership at that time that led to that long protracted war. like choosing the european ally over the Vietnamese despite the fact that theirs was a rightious plea for freedom.

I will agree to that. Although there may not have been sufficient cause for us to support the Viet after WWII, we certainly didn't have to allow imperialism by the French that we ironically defeated in the Japanese.

[Hollis]

choosing the french colonialist over the freedom of viet-nam, was way off the mark of the US Constitution that guarantees freedom from all oppression. i am sure i am right about that. it was probably the mentality of the leadership at that time that led to that long protracted war. like choosing the european ally over the Vietnamese despite the fact that theirs was a rightious plea for freedom.


pssst, The US Constitution only applies to the sovereign territory of the US. Let me also suggest taking a class in Constitutional law. When the constitution was written, there was chattel slaver, women where exclude, men who did not owned land was excluded, also indigenous Americans, etc.

Also one might argue that communism was more oppressive than colonialism.

When looking at history it is good to try to see it through the eyes of that time, other wise a view becomes historically-centric.

The perceived choice was probably this:

1) French Colonialism

2) Soviet Colonialism, such as the Warsaw pack.

[Delta Niner]

pssst, The US Constitution only applies to the sovereign territory of the US. Let me also suggest taking a class in Constitutional law. When the constitution was written, there was chattel slaver, women where exclude, men who did not owned land was excluded, also indigenous Americans, etc.

Also one might argue that communism was more oppressive than colonialism.

When looking at history it is good to try to see it through the eyes of that time, other wise a view becomes historically-centric.

The perceived choice was probably this:

1) French Colonialism

2) Soviet Colonialism, such as the Warsaw pack.

pssst, no US Constitutional subjects offered here. :) the most that we did is glean quickly over it.

but what about after the US Constitution was written and ratified, is it not true that gradually those words that was written in that paper was gradually restored to all concerned. too slow to some but eventually it happened.

besides if the US had remained an ally to HO during that time, there would not be any Soviet or Warsaw Pact or even China type thing in Vietnam in the first place.

the truth is that the US leadeship at that time choice was the French, and it turned out a very bad and costly choice.

[Hollis]

pssst, no US Constitutional subjects offered here. :) the most that we did is glean quickly over it.

but what about after the US Constitution was written and ratified, is it not true that gradually those words that was written in that paper was gradually restored to all concerned. too slow to some but eventually it happened.

besides if the US had remained an ally to HO during that time, there would not be any Soviet or Warsaw Pact or even China type thing in Vietnam in the first place.

the truth is that the US leadeship at that time choice was the French, and it turned out a very bad and costly choice.


On the first two sentence, I'll let you study that for yourself.

The US was a ally of Stalin.......... Now tie that in, to your view.

In China, was Allies to Nationalist.......... remember the Civil War in China?

Google Chiang Kai-shek.


Small note, My Dad met Madame Chiang Kai-Shek

And I had a Uncle with the Flying Tigers (mechanic)

[JJB1970]

Like choosing the european ally over the Vietnamese despite the fact that theirs was a rightious plea for freedom.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that point--but my perception is that communism wasn't seen as freedom by the U.S. (and I find it hard to argue with that).

Also, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the "cold war mindset" was correct or desirable. I am merely attempting to understand what U.S. policy makers were seeing as events unfolded. They were attempting to react to events before or as they happened while we have the luxury of judging them long afterwards.


Small note, My Dad met Madame Chiang Kai-Shek

And I had a Uncle with the Flying Tigers (mechanic)

I bet your uncle had some really amazing A.V.G. stories.

[Hollis]

I bet your uncle had some really amazing A.V.G. stories.

Also my Dad was in the China Fleet, Look up the USS Alden.

[JJB1970]

Also my Dad was in the China Fleet, Look up the USS Alden.

Impressive. I just posted that the last survivor from USS Panay passed away today. That had to be quite an experience. I did look up the USS Alden. The Alden had quite a service career. If I might ask, did your father meet Madame Chiang before, during, or after the war? (As I veer way off-topic.:))

[Hollis]

Impressive. I just posted that the last survivor from USS Panay passed away today. That had to be quite an experience. I did look up the USS Alden. The Alden had quite a service career. If I might ask, did your father meet Madame Chiang before, during, or after the war? (As I veer way off-topic.:))


I think it was before the war with the US, during the Japanese invasion of China.

[JJB1970]

Wow. The world was so much different then. Before WWII, before the Cold War.

[Hollis]

Wow. The world was so much different then. Before WWII, before the Cold War.


When I was young, I always enjoyed listening to the "old timers". Their history often goes unrecorded.

Stories from a Old lady, who told when he mother saw Confederate Cavalry crossing her parents farm lands.

A old man, who help build highways in the 20's.

A friend of mine who had a really old dad when he was born, his dad was a doctor and road with Poncho Villa.

I went down to a guys 100th birthday, he shucked hands with Lenin.

All regular people with a history that usually disappears with them

Not being off topic, like here let us look all the aspects of events that shaped the world that Ho Chi Minh was born into. The events that follow. We can all ask why. Maybe the best we can do it get a "Feel" for the time. None of it is simple, none of it happens in a void.

[domokun]

When I was young, I always enjoyed listening to the "old timers". Their history often goes unrecorded.

All regular people with a history that usually disappears with them


That is very true and sad. History is often recorded by those huge events, political and strategic decisions.

Stories of ordinary people leaks through recorded history too often. My mothers uncle, who passed in last september, wrote two part auto biography while bit over 90. He wasn't demended at all, first part of book was about his civilian life,approx 300 pages, and other was about winter and continuation war, about 200 pages.

When I was teenager I volunteered at local war invalids association, kept company and took 'em walks around retirement home for around couple hours on weekends. I heard lot interesting stories then. Sadly lot of history will be forgotten as WWII generation passes away.

Sorry for going off-topic.

[Laconian]

It has been mentioned that as the Cold War flared up the US (& the West) was faced with several things that developed: First was the concept that communism was monolithic in that Communist Soviets and Communist Chinese were tied with all the other communist movements going on. The US/UN experience in Korea from 50-53 certainly led to that conclusion.

Second, Europe was considered the major spot where the Soviets would make their big push to take more land. accordingly it was seen as more important to convince France to join NATO than stop them from re-colonizing Indo-China and other spots.

Third was the development of the US policy of containment: not attempting to wipe out or take back communist countries, but to stop them from spreading. At the same time the US was developing this, throughout the Truman and Eisenhower administrations was a focus on making the Army and Marine Corps smaller but making aviation, mainly the AF but the Navy too, the premier projection of power. This power came from policies that stressed a nuclear response to several scenarios.

All of these contributed to the US turning away from Ho and backing the French. Eisenhower's administration saw Viet Nam as the entanglement it became and had urged the incoming JFK administration to steer clear of it and thought it the US were to make a stand anywhere in SE Asia it should have been Laos.

HR McMaster's Dereliction of Duty is a great read on this subject.

[JJB1970]

I started Bernard Fall's "The Two Vietnams" looking for early info on the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh. Fall confirms the view that the Vietminh were not democratic socialists but outright communists. There was nothing moderate about the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh was a dedicated hardline communist (Stalin would have had him assassinated if he hadn't been). Fall presents a very convincing case that Ho Chi Minh was much more than a dedicated Nationalist revolutionary. I am only a few chapters in and up to about 1946-48. I am sure Fall's analysis of the 1955-56 period in North Vietnam will be interesting. I know that the typical communist mass trials and mass executions started in 1955, but I know nothing more.

Laconian, I might have to look into "Dereliction of Duty" as it sounds like it might dovetail well with the standard literature (Stanley Karnow, etc.).

Cheers.

[Delta Niner]

No. I said knowing what they knew at the time, I would've proceeded much the same way.

ok, and if you knew what you know now, would you still proceeded the same way the leaders of your nation has done at that time?

what would you have done differently?

[Delta Niner]

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that point--but my perception is that communism wasn't seen as freedom by the U.S. (and I find it hard to argue with that).

Also, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the "cold war mindset" was correct or desirable. I am merely attempting to understand what U.S. policy makers were seeing as events unfolded. They were attempting to react to events before or as they happened while we have the luxury of judging them long afterwards.



I bet your uncle had some really amazing A.V.G. stories.


JJB1970
Bro, Ho's brand of communism was different from Mao's or Lenin's. It is more of a Centralist type as Plage has pointed out. Besides he has the OSS Deer Time as his early advisers during the closing days of World War 2. If that was exploited more intensely, things might have turned differently. Who knows?

Hollis,
have you posted any AVG stories?

[T.S.C.Plage]

Plage, I think the cold war mentality was more a form of some kind of global insanity.
Heated, forced and lead by the USA politics...or not?


Centralist would be something not anyway connected to Marx, Lenin etc. BTW my understanding Lenin was pretty pragmatic also (Hammer, by Armand Hammer).
Don't know where exactly to place Ho but surely he was no communist in the common way. He was open minded enough to try to ally with the USA and disliked the Russian and Chinese way of communism.


Also, regards to your last sentence, Google the Palmer raid, the Western support of the counter revolution in the new Soviet Union........ etc.

This issue is global and over a period of time, probably from the French Commune on.
I don't see any direct comparison. Do you mean that these incidents were the forerunners for the "global-insanity" about communism as you call it?


On being wrong, Maybe, maybe not. This is my recollection of the events, I can be off. Also in Historical studies, right and wrong can be very elusive.

I don't think you adequately demonstrated how I was wrong.
No offence, everbody has his point of view. Infact I didn't wanted to proof you wrong. I just wanted to point out that Ho was more central then any other communist so far. Isn't that right?


Also some of your phrases smacked of "political junglism" such as: ""war-happy" politicians". Over simplification of complex events does more a disservice than anything else.
I don't know how you call such guys. Maybe Falcons? What ever, English is not my first language so don't nail me on formulations/phrase. This topic is so complex that you've to simplify a bit. If you want names...Dulles, McNamara etc.


My understanding the Eastern European countries DID NOT have a choice in joining the Warsaw pack. see Hungarian revolt.
Yes, you're right. That's why I also wrote "...or at least be supported by it" and talking about a "lightfire" (an example) for other prospective communist countries. For example Castro was also Pro-American before the US government tried to assassinate him. We'll never know how things would have developed. Maybe it would have given some countries an other opportunity as chosing the Red Star.


You seem to place too much blame on the US. The US is not more powerful than all the countries combine. The US does not control the world. I think a lot of people have a very over inflated sense of how much power the US actually has.
And it seems like you aren't able or willing to understand the diffrence between blaming a government for it's failures and ranting against a whole country and it's citizens. Don't take it (to) personal. Failures are made and to close your eyes in blind patriotism doesn't makes them undone. I know what I'm talking about because my country has enough **** in it's past that has or had to be dealt with.
About the "control the world" thingy. I'm not so sure anymore. In my opinion there is/was nothing wrong with being "the world police" but in some cases I think your leaders have simply overdone it and this can give the impression of trying to rule the world.


The perceived choice was probably this:

1) French Colonialism

2) Soviet Colonialism, such as the Warsaw pack.
3) Under US Protectorate ...maybe?


A friend of mine who had a really old dad when he was born, his dad was a doctor and road with Poncho Villa.
The guys name is Pancho. Not that I want to play teacher, just made me smile. ;)


Greetz
Plage

[T.S.C.Plage]

Third was the development of the US policy of containment: not attempting to wipe out or take back communist countries, but to stop them from spreading.

And what would have happend with Vietnam if you would have won the war? It would have been taken back from the communist Ho Tschi-Minh, or not? And just because your armed forces didn't invaded countries directly doesn't means it didn't happend. What's about the Pigs Bay, Stingers in Afghanistan and all the little unnoticed things that happend. Weren't that all actions to wipe out or take back communist countries?


Greetz
Plage

[SBL]

ok, and if you knew what you know now, would you still proceeded the same way the leaders of your nation has done at that time?

what would you have done differently?

???
No, I wouldn't. If I knew then what I do now, I'd try engineer a situation with more favorable outcomes for the US, obviously.

[LineDoggie]

The real mistake is upon the so called League of Nations for not recognizing there was a problem when Ho Chi Minh addressed them in 1919. So much history and we still make the same fundamental mistakes.

The League of Nations was Toothless from the Start, unfortunately. And that was due to many factors, including the USA refusing to ratify the Treaty

[Laconian]

And what would have happend with Vietnam if you would have won the war? It would have been taken back from the communist Ho Tschi-Minh, or not? And just because your armed forces didn't invaded countries directly doesn't means it didn't happend. What's about the Pigs Bay, Stingers in Afghanistan and all the little unnoticed things that happend. Weren't that all actions to wipe out or take back communist countries?


Greetz
Plage

In all of my reading on VietNam I never came across any strategic plan for the re-unification of the country. Our primary efforts were to stop the aggression of North Vietnam into the South. I'm not saying there wasn't a plan, I'm saying I'm unaware of one. As for Bay of Pigs, and Stingers to Afghanistan (I'm assuming you mean during the Soviet war there in the '80s) those were attempts to contain the spread of communism. Not very successful, but they fit in with the containment policy.

[JJB1970]

Greetings.

First, I welcome your differing viewpoints. I am not nor do intend to take any of it personally.:)

As I mentioned above, I am not sure that Ho Chi Minh (as talented and as able an individual as he was) was a "moderate" communist. It was really hard to stay alive as a socialist or moderate--as a Trotskyite. In communist jargon, those are known as "rightist tendencies." Persons on the poltical left who considered themselves socialists and or nationalists ended up dead--the Spanish Civil War is a good example of that and Stalin's purges are another. Bernard Fall makes clear that the Vietminh thinned out its own ranks by using the same methods--at least as early as 1946 and probably earlier.

Ho Chi Minh himself was a major player in the communist world. He spent way too much time in the 1920s and 1930s in Moscow learning (and practicing) the party ideology. If he were anything less than a true believer he would have disappeared into Lubyanka Prison with the other socialists and Trotskyites.

I agree that it is lamentable and tragic that the U.S. did not come up with a third, fourth or fifth, etc. policy option. But, it is worth pointing out that the U.S. did explore at least one other option to the French and communists: the U.S. (President Roosevelt) did offer Indochina to Chiang Kai Shek for him to oversee as a protectorate. We can look at that as foolish and naive, but it shows that the U.S. was seeking different alternatives to French rule and to communist rule. It would seem that Roosevelt did not want the French returning to Indochina nor did he like the option of supporting the communists.

In light of that let me offer this. Chiang Kai Shek was a former communist. He abandoned communism and received all kinds of U.S. support. It didn't end all that well, but it is still worth considering in light of this discussion.

Allow me to re-phrase the OPs original question to look at the situation from a different perspective: Didn't Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh miss an opportunity by not abandoning their ideology and denouncing Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao in order to gain the support of the U.S. for the independence of their nation in 1945?

Again, as a disclaimer, I am not suggesting that anyone else's opnions are wrong or incorrect or that the Cold War was the greatest event and nearly utopian in its majesty. I am merely attempting to explain out what drove American decision making (particularly in 1944-45).

Many Thanks.:)

PS: Bernard Fall's "The Two Vietnams" has been very enlightening. Also, I am open to other sources.

[Hollis]

In all of my reading on VietNam I never came across any strategic plan for the re-unification of the country. Our primary efforts were to stop the aggression of North Vietnam into the South. I'm not saying there wasn't a plan, I'm saying I'm unaware of one. As for Bay of Pigs, and Stingers to Afghanistan (I'm assuming you mean during the Soviet war there in the '80s) those were attempts to contain the spread of communism. Not very successful, but they fit in with the containment policy.


Same here, I think was something more on the lines of what happened with N and S Korea.

[Delta Niner]

???
No, I wouldn't. If I knew then what I do now, I'd try engineer a situation with more favorable outcomes for the US, obviously.

and how would you do that?

[Mastermind]

Vietnam taught the world...and by that term "World" I mean the Western Civilized world....that there are limits as to how far the world will go to stop a totalitarian movement. The allies lost about 60,000 not counting South VN casualties. The North lost by some estimate, more than 3.4 million...more or less is not certain.

So, it comes to about a 1 to 7 ratio in losses. How much pain a technological nation can inflict today is basically, limitless...all the way from a few water boarding incidents to complete immolation of entire national populations...that is the technological capability. But, the moral ability is highly limited. If a nation has 30 million inhabitants, on a national level, they can afford to lose about five hundred thousand people a year indefinitely. This would certainly stabilize their population...but, if that nation were to not be aggrieved agriculturally and economically, those losses could...in theory...be sustained. The problem is really for the nation they may be pising off. If it is a civilized nation with moral values, how long could they justify killing a half million people a year? For what reasons would they do that on a sustained level?

Vietnam comes to this very issue we are facing today. Muslim terrorists realize the particular form of Vietnamese terror works...and it works in spades! We have become too civilized to engage a really brutal enemy. We refuse to meet them on their own terms. As a result, we engage in an economic contest that is essentially unwinnable. And it is unwinnable by almost exact mathematical calculation. You can not go on fighting an enemy by remote control with million dollar bombs and missiles...eventually, you have to meet the enemy face to face. If he uses civilians as a shield, you have to kill him...he put the civilians in harms way...but we have twisted that by our fantastical belief we can somehow spend out way past the all-bloody and gutty "have to" of war. We simply can not. A sterile, hands clean war is not possible when you are facing utter barbarians.

If the savage refuses negotiation, you must do the necessary thing. If you try to negotiate from a position of weakness...and our civility is indeed a weakness in the eyes of the barbarian, the barbarian will eventually place your body on the pyre...and the bodies of your children.

This is not an assumption...it is a fact of conflict...you can never negotiate with barbarians...not ever. They only understand force. If you fail to apply the force necessary to impress him...you lose by default.

Vietnam, in the final rendering, simply won by not losing....and they were willing to pay the price to get to the final breaking point we, ourselves, established. They exceeded our threshold of barbarism.

Game, set, match to North Vietnam.

And, the lessons have not gone unnoticed except by the Western Civilizations.

[Delta Niner]

"Those efforts were unsuccessful. I don't know why. I have proposed to Hanoi that ... we engage in examining what I think were missed opportunities for each of us, for them and us, to have avoided the war or to have terminated it earlier, with less loss of life, without any adverse effects on the geopolitical situations of either one of us. I very much hope those discussions will take place. We have much to learn from them that can be applied to the world of today and tomorrow. How to avoid these conflicts is something the human race has to learn. This century will go down as the bloodiest century in all of human history. We'll have lost 160 million people, killed by conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century? I don't think so. If we want to avoid it, we have to learn from our mistakes in this century. Vietnam was one of those. "

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

[Mastermind]

He was lying...I read that and saw his interview. He knew exactly why those efforts were not successful. His problem is, as a man of substance, he can not say the "Why". It is too terrible to contemplate.

[Laconian]

McNamara's whiz bang, numbers/bottom-line oriented running of DoD was one of the majors problems with our conduct of the war there. The non-military thinkers he brought in to run programs, seeped, if not outright stole, initiative from military commanders - tying everything to measurable and hence budgetary considerations.

[Hollis]

My thoughts from a historical perspective. Sadly none of us were involved in the Command and Control of any side during that conflict, or any side in indirect involvement.

What that means we read what others have to say. The question has always been, how much truth or spin is there in their comments?

The other aspect can be geocentric in nature. Being the states, I get the information that is available here. I may not have access to complete information in those other countries. I think the best we can do, or at least for me, is to get a feel for the event. I think it is nearly impossible to actually get a balance view of a event as it is happening or for some time after it has happened. That may be simply stated as a human issue. Those involved may have to much personal capital involved to be completely open and honest about their contributions.


I don't know if I can say the Viet-Nam was a mistake. There where many mistakes made on all sides. There where major and minor players who effected the outcome. I know over time, my "feel" has changed and bounced around as I learned more from that conflict and over situation of the world at that time.

I have been enjoying reading this thread, because it added to my understanding of the war.

I also wonder if any of us will ever really know and to add maybe some of the key players may not know either.