"It's an ill wind....."

[neverfail]

So was Berlin, not to mention Nagasaki and Hiroshima. How come I don’t hear you complaining? You want the US to win wars without killing people. I know what it is. You want Socialists to win. That’s why you object to US intervention in Vietnam.

Specious comparison! Nazi Germany was an aggressor state that brought the woes of military defeat down upon the German people. Vietnam was an internal matter for the Vietnamese to settle among themselves. Did I want the socialists to win? As I see it, what my or your preference is in the matter I see as irrelevant for the simple, I would have thought obvious, reason that Vietnam is neither my country nor yours. If the mass of Vietnamese preferred national unification under Hanoi's leadership than the alternative then why stand in their way?

In addition to what I said earlier, the bigger Socialist/Communist powers, did not leave it to the Vietnamese to sort out things for themselves. North Vietnam was supplied by China and the USSR.

Absolutely right observation cassowary and full marks to you for that! The false interpretation you place on that support from the Communist big two was that these were the driving force behind Communist insurgency in Indochina. Absolutely wrong! The driving force behind it was Hanoi. The North Vietnam government knew about the rivalry/bad blood between the two Communist big powers and astutely played upon it, one against the other, in order to get what they needed to continue the war.

Significantly, neither the USSR nor the PRC sent ground troops to Vietnam to do the fighting of their Vietnamese allies for them. That is a revealing difference between the two sides.

Without US intervention, South Vietnam was doomed.

It was doomed anyway; so what the heck!

Your policy preference that the US stay away will result in Socialist victory. It seems to me that the western left mostly want their fellow Socialists to win even though they were dictators, thugs and mass murderers.

I will dismiss that statement with contempt!
…..................,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...........

If Vietnam was only a civil war, then the Malayan Emergency was also a civil war. Why did you approve of British and Commonwealth help?

We have been over that ground already.

I don’t regard the Vietnam war to be only a civil war. It was also a globalwar between democracy and dictatorship and between two opposing ideologies - capitalism and socialism.

It was what should have remained a localized civil war that was symbolically transferred into something that resembled that by foreign intervention - in particular by that of a US administration that was as apparently as bereft of insight into foreign affairs as has been more than one US administration I can remember since.

Speaking of foreign intervention: to show that I do not entirely blame the Americans, The French played their part in setting the Vietnam tragedy in train by dividing the country into two separate zones as part of their peace settlement/departure strategy with the Viet Minh after their stunning defeat at Dienbienphu - instead of simply ceding independence to the entire country with Ho Chi Minh's team as the recognized government. Please note that the two zones of Vietnam were supposed to be but two zones within the same country - not the basis for two separate national soverignties. Saigon then betrayed the terms and conditions of the agreement by refusing to participate in the referendum for reunification that was scheduled to take place 5 years after the 1954 signing of the peace accord.

What was Hanoi supposed to do; take it on the chin graciously?

[Jim the Moron]

All of this verbage boils down to this. Elements (patriots) of native Vietnam society and Malayan society sought to rid themselves of the opposition, with different outcomes. We live with those outcomes today.

[cassowary]

I don’t regard the Vietnam war to be only a civil war. It was also a globalwar between democracy and dictatorship and between two opposing ideologies - capitalism and socialism.

It was what should have remained a localized civil war that was symbolically transferred into something that resembled that by foreign intervention - in particular by that of a US administration that was as apparently as bereft of insight into foreign affairs as has been more than one US administration I can remember since.

Speaking of foreign intervention: to show that I do not entirely blame the Americans, The French played their part in setting the Vietnam tragedy in train by dividing the country into two separate zones as part of their peace settlement/departure strategy with the Viet Minh after their stunning defeat at Dienbienphu - instead of simply ceding independence to the entire country with Ho Chi Minh's team as the recognized government. Please note that the two zones of Vietnam were supposed to be but two zones within the same country - not the basis for two separate national soverignties. Saigon then betrayed the terms and conditions of the agreement by refusing to participate in the referendum for reunification that was scheduled to take place 5 years after the 1954 signing of the peace accord.

What was Hanoi supposed to do; take it on the chin graciously?

You appear to be keen on giving the whole country to a Socialist dictatorship. How could the French do that? Do the Vietnamese people want that? Somewhere in of your posts, you seem to think so. It is true, that Ho Chi Minh earned a measure of support for his anti-colonial stance, but I don't think they have the support of the majority.

To answer your question on what we should have expected from the North Vietnamese, I expect them to put their popularity to the test by holding a free and fair election. But they did not because they were not confident of victory. The reason was simple. After the Socialists/Communists defeated the French, they took over the North and killed lots of people. This is normal for a Socialist dictatorship. As I said earlier, you need a counterforce to cancel out the force of nature (this refers to the very human nature that each of us willingly do things for our own good and not the collective good as required by Socialism).

Excerpt from link:

Finally, we can turn to democide. That for North Vietnam involved in the early years a terror devoted to eliminating non-communist nationalists, anti-communists, and those who were pro-French (lines 266 to 275). Once the war against the French was almost over Hanoi turned to destroying and rebuilding the rural economic and power structure. This period, from 1953 to 1956, is very significant and the estimates are very confused. I have accordingly outlined in the table all the estimates associated with it so that the mode of calculation and associated subtotals for this period can be clearly distinguished.

Among the first campaigns was that to "reduce rent," which really involved ridding the countryside of rich, powerful, and bourgeois peasants. (line 279). There is only one estimate of the associated democide, and for it the source (Hoang Van Chi, a Vietnamese nationalist with first hand experience) cites Professor Gerard Tongas who was in Hanoi during these years (he left in 1959), and which he claims to be accurate.3 I will therefore rely on this estimate in the subsequent calculations.

Once this campaign was completed and the countryside softened up, "land reform" proper took place (this was the taking of land from those who owned more than a defined amount and giving it to landless peasants-- a preliminary to full nationalization of the land). There are major problems in estimating those who were killed or died in the campaign. The estimates cover different periods; and some cover strictly the "land reform" campaign while others appear to mix up the "rent reduction" campaign with the "land reform" or "political struggle" campaigns, with on going repression and retaliation (lines 312 to 318), or with democide associated with the suppression of rebellions (lines 322 to 325). I try to handle this by dividing "land reform" estimates in terms of their ostensive inclusiveness. Thus I first present estimates of "executions" (lines 282 to 288); then those executed and otherwise "killed" (lines 292 to 298); and then those who also otherwise died (i.e., "dead"--lines 302 to 308), such as those tagged as wealthy peasants who were deprived of their land, officially ostracized and thus denied food and shelter. Consequently, in consolidating the "land reform" dead (line 309), I made sure that the figures subsumed the consolidated killed estimates (line 299), that this in turn subsumed the consolidated execution estimates (line 289), and that this subsumed the rent reduction killed (line 279). In determining the final democide "land reform" total, I only added the final "land reform" dead (line 309) to those killed in political struggle, etc. (line 319), and the suppression of uprisings (line 326). The probable democide for this four year period then totals 283,000 North Vietnamese (line 329).

But then there was also those who died in prison or at forced labor from 1945 to 1956. One estimate of 500,000 dead (line 335) from President Nixon, which may have been based on secret intelligence estimates, cannot be accepted without some publicly available confirming information or similar independent estimates. Based on other estimates of the prison/camp population I assumed a 50,000 camp population per year and an unnatural death rate of 2 percent per year, on par with the Chinese rate4 and much lower then for the Soviet gulag.5 This gives me a low of 24,000 dead (line 336). There is not enough information to estimate a high or mid number.

Then also there were the POWs from the French Expeditionary Force that were killed. Based on the sources,6 I only dare estimate this number at 13,000 (line 341).

Putting together all these consolidations and calculations, I figure that for the years 1945 to 1956 the Vietnamese communists likely killed 242,000 to 922,000 people (line 347). Above this range I show two other estimates of these dead (lines 344 and 345), one at 700,000 and the other at 500,000 dead. Both are contained within the range at which I arrived.

By the way, democide is defined as the killing of your own people by your own government.

I think the Communists would have lost the election if it was free and fair. The French could not do anything about the North, which it lost. But how could they have given South Vietnam to these butchers?

I think the western left can be divided into two groups. The moderates place a higher priority on achieving democracy and freedom than on achieving Socialism. The more radical leftists place a higher priority on achieving Socialism than on achieving democracy and freedom.

Thus the latter group was willing to overlook thugs like Ho Chi Minh in order to pursue their Socialist dream. During the 1950s when the Malayan Emergency was mostly fought, memories of Hitler and Mussolini were still fresh. So there was no significant anti-war sentiment to pull British troops out of Malaya.

But later, the radical leftists became the dominant party and that was why there was so much anti-Americanism during the Vietnam War. How this came about, I can easily guess. The USSR was waging a secret campaign of disinformation to discredit America's noble effort to stop the spread of Socialism/Communism in Indo-China.

[neverfail]

You appear to be keen on giving the whole country to a Socialist dictatorship.

Unjust, irrational accusation against me Cassowary. I refused to participate in any of the Vietnam Moratorium marches and rallies out here while the Vietnam War was being fought out specifically because even then I was under no illusions about what Communist rule was likely to be like over there - and I did not want to be guilty of lending any moral support to the Communist side.

Were I now to be pushed through a time tunnel back to those days my position and behavior would be unchanged.

However, I am just as mindful that regardless of my own preferences and prejudices in the matter history has a way of taking its own course. When posting a viewpoint on this website I endeavor to place my own bias to one side and try to see things as those on the ground participating might have seen it. As far as possible my published views reflect this suspension of partiality.

Alas Cassowary; going by the number of times I have witnessed how you allow your wishful thinking (as above) intrudes into your posted offerings, it seems that you have not arrived at anything like this standard of self mastery.
......................................................................................................................................

It is true, that Ho Chi Minh earned a measure of support for his anti-colonial stance, but I don't think they have the support of the majority.

You bet he did Cass. I recall many years ago reading an essay written by a Vietnamese refugee and published in one of our quality newspapers. That article was very revealing. She claimed that in 1954 when news of the Viet Minh victory over the French at Dienbienphu spread, a "surge of national pride" (her words) spread through the hearts and minds of all Vietnamese. At last our own people have beaten those French colonialists. Even Vietnamese who wanted no truck with Communism felt proud. It must have been a very empowering moment for all Vietnamese.

That, dear Cass, is where Ho Chi Minh gained his authority from - as the founding father of Vietnamese independence. Much like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe: who was much venerated in both his own country and by fellow African leaders elsewhere regardless of how much of a hash he subsequently made out of handling the responsibilities of governing his country.

(Come to think of it: don't the Yanks still place George Washington high up on a pedestal? Yet I an sure that GW was no more conceived without sin than you and I were. )

My position has never been that Communist rule there was desirable but historically inevitable.

To answer your question on what we should have expected from the North Vietnamese, I expect them to put their popularity to the test by holding a free and fair election.

Then you are wishing for the moon. Revolutionary insurgents who spend years out in the wilderness waging guerrilla war against an opponent who initially holds all of the advantages never do.

Finally, we can turn to democide.

Thanks for the link. It reminded me of the heavy price that Indochina (along with countless individuals) paid before stability was finally achieved in the aftermath of Communist victory. I have no doubt that after the French ceding of government in the north to the (Communist) Viet Minh leadership, these went to great pains to purge their part of Vietnam of all possible opposition. Look at the historic examples they had in front of them by then. The USSR. Mao's China. Both examples of successfully Communist ruled countries that had likewise gone through purges to ensure that rule by the Communist party (and its ideals) were unassailable.

The North Vietnamese leadership would have had an additional reason to take such a ruthless course. They still had the South to win and would have wanted "no loose cannon on board their ship" during the coming endeavor.

[cassowary]

You appear to be keen on giving the whole country to a Socialist dictatorship.

Unjust, irrational accusation against me Cassowary. I refused to participate in any of the Vietnam Moratorium marches and rallies out here while the Vietnam War was being fought out specifically because even then I was under no illusions about what Communist rule was likely to be like over there - and I did not want to be guilty of lending any moral support to the Communist side.

Were I now to be pushed through a time tunnel back to those days my position and behavior would be unchanged.

I am happy to hear that but its ok even if you did protest. Don't forget I come from a country which arrested Chia Thye Poh for organizing and participating in an anti-Vietnam War demonstration. Over here, we see a parallel between the British and Commonwealth effort to defeat Socialist/Communist guerrillas in Malaya with US efforts to defeat Socialist/Communist Vietcong. We are thankful of British and Commonwealth sacrifice of blood and treasure to save us from a ruthless dictatorship had Chin Peng won.

The difference between the British and French is that the British won while the French lost. Had the French won Dien Bien Phu, I think they eventually would have given the Vietnamese independence. The Americans stepped in to save an already independent South Vietnam from Socialism/Communism.

However, I am just as mindful that regardless of my own preferences and prejudices in the matter history has a way of taking its own course. When posting a viewpoint on this website I endeavor to place my own bias to one side and try to see things as those on the ground participating might have seen it. As far as possible my published views reflect this suspension of partiality.

Alas Cassowary; going by the number of times I have witnessed how you allow your wishful thinking (as above) intrudes into your posted offerings, it seems that you have not arrived at anything like this standard of self mastery.

I think your judgement of the Vietnamese feeling towards the Communists is wrong. I will elaborate more later.
......................................................................................................................................

quote=cassowary post_id=24063 time=1563174565 user_id=60] It is true, that Ho Chi Minh earned a measure of support for his anti-colonial stance, but I don't think they have the support of the majority.

You bet he did Cass. I recall many years ago reading an essay written by a Vietnamese refugee and published in one of our quality newspapers. That article was very revealing. She claimed that in 1954 when news of the Viet Minh victory over the French at Dienbienphu spread, a "surge of national pride" (her words) spread through the hearts and minds of all Vietnamese. At last our own people have beaten those French colonialists. Even Vietnamese who wanted no truck with Communism felt proud. It must have been a very empowering moment for all Vietnamese.

That, dear Cass, is where Ho Chi Minh gained his authority from - as the founding father of Vietnamese independence. Much like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe: who was much venerated in both his own country and by fellow African leaders elsewhere regardless of how much of a hash he subsequently made out of handling the responsibilities of governing his country.

That essay was written immediately after the Dien Bien Phu victory. But after a few years of Communist rule in the North, I think her opinion would have changed after witnessing what victory by Socialist/Communists entailed - the usual mass killings, the poverty inducing Socialist policies. People's opinion change from year to year and even from day to day. That is why politics is so unpredictable. Had the Socialists/Communists believed in their own propaganda that the people love Socialism, they would have agreed to a free and fair election to give it legitimacy.

(Come to think of it: don't the Yanks still place George Washington high up on a pedestal? Yet I an sure that GW was no more conceived without sin than you and I were. )

My position has never been that Communist rule there was desirable but historically inevitable.

I disagree. Had the Americans stuck it out for a few years more, the Communists would have been defeated in S Vietnam. When the US forces were at its peak, they should have gone into Laos, then the hub of the Ho Chi Minh trail. If they disrupted the flow of supplies to the South, the Vietcong would have been defeated. After a significant pull out of forces, S Vietnamese ARVN force tried that with US troops playing only a supporting role. They failed.

To answer your question on what we should have expected from the North Vietnamese, I expect them to put their popularity to the test by holding a free and fair election.

Then you are wishing for the moon. Revolutionary insurgents who spend years out in the wilderness waging guerrilla war against an opponent who initially holds all of the advantages never do.

I can think of one revolution that did not result in mass killings - the US revolution. Some British loyalists were driven off to Canada and that was about it. They started a Republic giving people a Bill or Rights. Eventually, that republic evolved into a democracy. It was not perfect but possibly the best of all Revolutions.

Consider the French Revolution. How many were killed? Robespierre, remember him? I think there is something noble about the American character that allowed this glorious outcome to happen. I know the American left tries its best to discredit their own country by holding it against an impossibly high standard. But compared to the standard achieved by other communities, the US revolution was the best or one of the best.

Ho Chi MInh, the George Washington of Vietnam killed hundreds of thousands in his land reform that was inspired by his ideology - Socialism. In contrast, the American Revolution was inspired by a different ideology that the Creator had given us inalienable rights. That was why the US revolution had better results.

Or how about Algeria? The Algerians, also fought against the colonizers. What happened after they won independence?

A final period of violence occurred after independence. People affiliated with the French rule in Algeria who stayed after the French left suffered retributive violence. “Harki” was a name given to Algerians who were French loyalists. By most accounts, some “tens of thousands” were killed in summer 1962, some fled, and others tried to stay and keep as low a profile as was possible in the new Algeria. Violence against harki began even before the ceasefire came into effect, with accounts suggesting a rise in violence in March 1962.[iii] Algerians who joined the FLN late once the tide had turned, used violence as a way to prove themselves and to claim materials rewards (through looting, for instance).[iv] The number of harki killed is often reported to be as high as 60,000 and 150,000, but recent historians have suggested the number may be closer to 30,000 (see below). There were also attacks against some of the remaining population of European descent.

As the example of French extremists and harki demonstrate, not all violence occurred across the schism of French and Algerian. One additional factor was fighting within the FLN. The FLN was composed of several major groups: the Gouvernement Provisoire de la République Algérienne (GPRA), formed in exile in 1958; the six regional military commands (wilayas) that had formed the backbone of the struggle for independence; the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) composed of Alergian exiles in Tunisia and Morocco; and the Fédération de France du Front de Libération Nationale (FFFLN) the arm of the FLN that had operated in France.[v]

Fighting between political parties (particularly the GPRA and ALN) resulted in the “deaths of over a thousand members of both sides during August and early September 1962 before a ceasefire was agreed on 5 September.”[vi]

On July 1, 1962, Algerians overwhelmingly voted for independence and on July 3, French Pres. de Gaulle officially recognized the vote. Ben Bella, associated with the ALN, became the head of the new independent government, during which time he attempted to concentrate power. He was overthrown in a coup in 1965 led by Houari Boumediene.

To sum up, the Algerian revolution against France resulted in lots of people killed after Independence and rule by a military dictatorship. Can you think of a successful revolution against an European power that had as benign an outcome as the American Revolution?

Finally, we can turn to democide.

Thanks for the link. It reminded me of the heavy price that Indochina (along with countless individuals) paid before stability was finally achieved in the aftermath of Communist victory. I have no doubt that after the French ceding of government in the north to the (Communist) Viet Minh leadership, these went to great pains to purge their part of Vietnam of all possible opposition. Look at the historic examples they had in front of them by then. The USSR. Mao's China. Both examples of successfully Communist ruled countries that had likewise gone through purges to ensure that rule by the Communist party (and its ideals) were unassailable.

The North Vietnamese leadership would have had an additional reason to take such a ruthless course. They still had the South to win and would have wanted "no loose cannon on board their ship" during the coming endeavor.

They took this ruthless course because they were inspired by the ideology of Socialism instead of the ideology that God has given us inalienable rights.

[neverfail]

That essay was written immediately after the Dien Bien Phu victory.

That was a very rash presumption for you to publish Cassowary, considering that the essay in question was published in one of our newspapers years after the 1975 fall of Saigon.

[Sertorio]

They took this ruthless course because they were inspired by the ideology of Socialism instead of the ideology that God has given us inalienable rights.

Conditional to Trump, the exceptional leader, agreeing to them, of course... After all, God being American, He is bound to consult the commander-in-chief...

[neverfail]

The Americans stepped in to save an already independent South Vietnam from Socialism/Communism.

Could you please explain to me why they needed to?

South Vietnam had about the same sized population as North Vietnam yet the North Vietnamese government never needed to call upon their allies, either the Russians or the Chinese, to send combat troops to their country to fight the Americans (or the ARVN).

So why could not the Saigon regime have done it all by themselves as a mirror-image of the northern war effort: with (fair enough) external material and moral support from the US along with other friendly powers but without American and other foreign soldiers to bear the brunt of the fighting?

It looks to me like the South Vietnam government had a problem with the loyalty of its own population.

[neverfail]

The difference between the British and French is that the British won while the French lost.

The Malaya 'emergency was a "cheap", low level conflict fought by British and Commonwealth forces on a shoestring budget. By comparison the American armed intervention into Vietnam was done of a massive, overpowering and much more costly scale (that being the American way ) yet they still lost. What hope did the French have of winning in the decade following the end of the Second World War when France itself could not have fully recovered from the losses of that war along with 4 years of Nazi German occupation?

[cassowary]

The Americans stepped in to save an already independent South Vietnam from Socialism/Communism.

Could you please explain to me why they needed to?

South Vietnam had about the same sized population as North Vietnam yet the North Vietnamese government never needed to call upon their allies, either the Russians or the Chinese, to send combat troops to their country to fight the Americans (or the ARVN).

So why could not the Saigon regime have done it all by themselves as a mirror-image of the northern war effort: with (fair enough) external material and moral support from the US along with other friendly powers but without American and other foreign soldiers to bear the brunt of the fighting?

It looks to me like the South Vietnam government had a problem with the loyalty of its own population.

Firstly, the North had supplies from the Russians and Chinese. Admittedly, they did not send troops. Being totalitarian, the North can operate with utmost ruthlessness. The South could not with a free market economy. When the government control everything, including your livelihood, you had no choice.