North Vietnam generally adhered to the terms of the Accords. Which is not really surprising as the situation created by the terms favored them. The main point of the Accords was a call for unification of the two halves of Vietnam after a 1956 general election - which the communists were confident of winning based on the greater population in the North combined with some support in the South.
The French, as colonisers, could not create anything. The Geneva Accords, which the USA agreed to support, being part of their negotiation even if they pusillanimously wriggled out of them when they realised Ho was going to win any popular election, explicitly stated that the temporary divison was not to be taken as a basis for creating political entities.
And the non-sig of South Vietnam - being a dictatorial puppet regime of a made up entity not a government of a country - is neither here nor there.
Remember also that Ho tried to come to an understanding with the USA, which he admired greatly. He was primarily a nationalist leading a liberation movement not an ideological communist and at one time offered to adopt the US constitution wholesale.
The Star Spangled Banner played at the rally he declared independence at and the US Constitution quoted. Making this guy an ally was an open goal.
Kennedy continued the blind, stupid US policy that repeatedly confused national liberation movements (and in South america - indigenous social revolutionary movements) with the non-existent International Communist Conspiracy. Instead of buying friends with chump change it spent hundreds of billions driving them into the arms of the soviets and the chinese.
**Please provide cites of some sort for your claims. We would all like a chance to review your source materials. **
Jim
Ho had been a committed Communist since the 1920’s, and the regime he created in the North was a one-party state. The Soviet Union, at the height of Stalin’s purges, had an ostensibly democratic constitution not much different from that of the United States, so the West was correct to spurn any such offer as meaningless.
No he was not a ‘committed communist’ since that time in the sense that his communism trumped his nationalism. He did not fight all his life to hand VN over to the USSR, he fought for national independence.
He asked Truman to support vietnamese liberation and only in 1950 did he get real Soviet and Chinese support. They were the only ones to recognise his government. Without a countervailing western weight he was dependent on them.
It’s this arrogant fantasy that the USA gets to pick and choose the governments of other countries that so infuriates the rest of the world. It was the vietnamese, lead by Ho, that defeated the French. Not the USA and not the puppet Diem.
And you cannot possibly be serious in your statement about the USSR/USA constitution.
You might like to actually read it. and point out the independent judiciary, The Bill of Rights, the seperation of powers etc. Then you might want to point out the US equivalent of the Council of People’s Commissars.
Of course constitutions are no more than bits of paper and totalitarian regimes like to dress up in democratic clothing but it is not the right of the USA to choose how other people govern themselves. And it is certainly not right for it to cause the deaths of millions in the process.
No outcome for both Vietnam or the USA could have been worse than using the soft power of the USA to pragmatically deal with the breakup of European colonial empires.
‘Communist’ never = ‘aligned automatically with Moscow’, as the Sino-Soviet split showed and as Vietnam’s relationship with China continues to show. There never was any such thing as the ICC. There were no dominoes to fall. And the West worked fine with communist Yugoslavia against the Warsaw Pact.
The pragmatic, sensible thing was to swim with the national liberation tide - secure in the certainty that the West’s soft power far outweighed that of the Soviets.
And if that didn’t suit the narrow interests of United Fruit, AT&T etc then too bad. Much better than fighting wars that cannot be won for appalling dictators.
The Vietnam War was a dreadful and pointless tragedy for all concerned.
Intriguing response, but let’s stick to the broader outlines of my OP. Please.
ralph124c, I’m not sure what you think your point might be, but your comments, here, are simply odd. You made a brash assertion in your first post for which you have ignored several separate requests for supporting information. Then, instead of actually citing references to shore up that post, you return in your second post with a shopping list of gossip column talking points, (a couple of which are true and most of which are exaggerations of known facts), only to wind up with another unsubstantiated claim that he rushed into Viet Nam against the advice of other (unnamed) persons.
If you cannot do better than loading up the thread with personal attacks and unsupported speculation, why not save these trivia tidbits for a “bash JFK” thread in the Pit (or another message board)?
Article 112, “judges are independent and subject only to the law”, and Article 125, wherein citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly. My point is, an offer to adopt certain features in a constitution isn’t necessarily evidence of sincerity.
You asked whether Kennedy is unfairly blamed for Vietnam. tagos said the blame is fair because we should have supported Ho. I disagree because Ho was a Communist dictator, and we had valid reasons for opposing the spread of Communism at the time. Sorry, but it’s on topic.
Yes, I think most mainstream historians have been fair to JFK. I greatly admire him for many reasons, but he was a committed Cold Warrior and much more hawkish than many people now care to remember.
That said, he was also pragmatic and could learn from his mistakes. He was much more wary of Pentagon advice after the Bay of Pigs (the JCS had reviewed and signed off on the CIA’s plans) than his successor. He also had a keener appreciation of Third World aspirations than LBJ or even many of his own White House advisors. While a Congressman, before Dien Bien Phu, he gave a speech highly critical of the French military involvement in Vietnam, acknowledging the nationalist aspirations of the Vietnamese. He told either Chester Bowles of the State Dept. or Sen. Mike Mansfield (I forget which) in mid-1963 that he was concerned that Vietnam might turn out to be a sinkhole and was considering withdrawing most U.S. troops after his (anticipated and hoped-for) 1964 reelection. He gave an interview in Hyannisport with Walter Cronkite the summer of '63 in which he emphasized that the U.S. could help and advise the South Vietnamese government, but that it was their country and their war to win. JFK was also dismayed by the bungling and chaos of the coup that deposed Diem that fall. He was a big backer of the Special Forces and counterinsurgency tactics, which might very well have worked better than the institutional Army’s all-guns-blazing, massive-buildup approach.
David Halberstam’s Pulitzer Prize-winning The Best and the Brightest is an excellent study of JFK’s and LBJ’s decision-making on Vietnam. JFK had a much better appreciation of what was actually going on in Vietnam, and was much more thoughtful on foreign affairs than LBJ ever was, and I think that might have made a big difference had he lived to serve two full terms.
I also agree with much of what Freddy the Pig has written here.
Actually, I was responding to the post above yours, yet somehow attached my message to yours. Weird.
My apologies. Carry on, my good man. 