From: CNguyen.osbu_north@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Ngo-Dinh-Diem : another perspective
X-Ns-Transport-Id: 080020110E7F2EFA29DF
Organization: Saigon.COM Public Access BBS; Data Line: (408)730-1092
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:11:56 GMT


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Here's my try to APV.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


>From:	Kim Nguyen <knguyen@emr1.emr.ca>
>Recognizing that many articles take excerpts from foreign books while
>ignoring Vietnamese documents. I took part of a published letter by
>Ton-That-Binh sent to a newspaper recently. If we just only base
>on foreign documents to research about Ngo, it is still not enough to have
>an insight of a story. Let us look at another side of that story; judgment
>is yours. I think all SCVers can read Vietnamese. I apoligize to Mr. TTB
>not to let him know I use his published letter to help Vietnamese to have
>another look at Ngo-dinh-Diem.
...
[stuff delete]
...
>Ngu*o*`i ta phe^ pha'n che^' -do^. o^ng Die^.m la` che^' -do^. gia -di`nh
>tri. Ca'i -do' co' tha^.t. Tuy nhie^n xe't cho cu`ng, ca'i gia -di`nh tri.
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>-do' vo*'i nhu*~ng ngu*o*`i co' ta`i -da~ la`m hu*ng thi.nh -da^'t nu*o*'c,
>pha?i to^'t -de.p ho*n ca'i Kho^ng gia -di`nh tri. cu?a ca'c che^' -do^.
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>sau -da^`y tham nhu~ng va` thie^'u ban? la~nh -da~ la`m ma^'t nu*o*'c ga^y
>ne^n cuo^.c tha'o cha.y ra nu*o*'c ngoa`i. O^ng Nhu la` vi. co^' va^'n ta`i
>ba cu?a co^' TT Die^.m. O^ng -da~ -du*a ra mo^.t chu? thuye^'t vu*~ng
>cha<'c -do^'i -da^`u vo*'i chu? thuye^'t Ma'c xi't cu?a co^.ng sa?n :
>Chu? thuye^'t Ca^`n Lao Nha^n vi. O^ng -da~ co' ke^' hoa.ch thie^'t la^.p
>nhu*~ng he^. tho^'ng a^'p chie^'n lu*o*.c, nhu*~ng khu tru` ma^.t vo*'i
>ca'ch to^? chu*'c qui mo^, ca'ch kie^?m soa't te^' nhi. ngu*o*`i la. ma<.t
>(chu.p a?nh toa`n gia -di`nh va` treo trong nha`; so^' ngu*o*`i trong gia
>-di`nh thay -do^?i hay co' ngu*o*`i la. ma<.t kho^ng co' ngu*o*`i trong
>a?nh la` bie^'t lie^`n).

Not true. The plan which was helped to form by Sir Robert Thompson in theory
was a sure win but in reality because of the corruption of the top responsible
South Vietnam administrators it went very bad. The utilities which were
supplied to help the peasants to build their new homes had been stolen and sold
to the free market or resold to the peasants. By mid 1963 the national
strategic hamlet plan (aka Quoc Sach Ap Chien Luoc) had become a joke, as later
recalled by many South Vietnamese.

>Ke^' hoa.ch na`y -da~ vo^ hie^.u ho'a hoa.t -do^.ng xa^m nha^.p cu?a VC va`
>la`m tan ra~ ha. ta^`ng co* so*? cu?a chu'ng.
>

Did he relate this to the infamous "To>' Co>.ng" program?

>O^ng Nhu -da~ cho tha`nh la^.p ca'c toa'n bi`nh -di.nh, xa^y du*.ng no^ng
>tho^n, ca'c toa'n 4T...hoa.t -do^.ng sa't ca'nh vo*'i ngu*o*`i da^n o*?
>no^ng tho^n ne^n -da~ ca<'t -du*'t he^. tho^'ng tie^'p te^' va` lie^n la.c
>cu?a VC o*? ha. ta^`ng co* so*? ta.i no^ng tho^n vo*'i bo.n -da^`u na~o o*?
>ru*`ng nu'i.

Again, not true. If one take a look at Doa\n Them's "Vie>.c Tu*\ng nga\y:
1945-1964" one should be able to see that Viet Cong's activities rapidly
escalested after 1960 with its successful assasinations and large scale
ambushes.

>O^ng Nhu -da~ cho pha't -do^.ng nhu*~ng -do^.i chie^u ho^`i, ta^m ly'
>chie^'n la`m hoang mang ha`ng ngu? VC, la`m chu'ng lo la<'ng khie^'p so*.
>Su*. tha`nh co^ng na`y qua' su*'c ru*.c ro*?, ne^'u ta -de^? y' la` sau
>hie^.p -di.nh Geneve, khi' the^' chie^'n tha<'ng cu?a VC -da~ bao tru`m
>mie^`n Nam vo*'i ha. ta^`ng co* so*? cu?a chu'ng tha^.t vu*~ng cha<c. Ne^'u
>tho*`i -do' My~ -do^`ng ke^' hoa.ch VN ho'a chie^'n tranh cu?a co^' TT Diem
>-de^` nghi. thi` cha<'c ti`nh hi`nh VN -da~ sa'ng su?a ra ta^.n mie^`n
>Ba<'c.
>O^ng Nhu, vo*'i chu*'c vu. co^' va^'n cho TT, la` ngu*o*`i co' co^ng trong
>vie^.c cho^'ng co^.ng va` pha't trie^?n quo^'c gia. Bo*?i va^.y kho^ng ne^n
>qua' kha<'c khe vo*'i o^ng Nhu vi` ca'i gia -di`nh tri. na`y no' -da~ la`m
>hu*ng thi.nh -da^'t nu*o*'c.
...
[stuff deleted]
...
>Ngu*o*`i ta -do^? to^.i cho co^' TT Diem la` -da`n a'p Pha.t gia'o ! Cuo^.c
>-da`n a'p co' tha^.t nhu*ng co' pha?i do o^ng Diem vi` ky` thi. to^n gia'o
>ma` ga^y ne^n kho^ng hay la` o^ng Diem cu~ng la` na.nnha^n nhu* ca'c
>Pha^.t tu*? la^m na.n ?

>Ne^'u o^ng Diem ky` thi. Pha^.t giao thi` -do*`i na`o o^ng la.i giao
>nhu*~ng chu*'c vu. then cho^'t (co' the^>? la^.t -do^? che^' -do^.
>-du*o*.c) cho tu*o*'ng To^n Tha^'t -Di'nh va` -Da.i ta' -Do^~ Ma^.u. Nhu*
>va^.y cuo^.c -da`n a'p Pha^.t gia'o pha?i do mo^.t nguye^n nha^n kha'c.

Someone not long ago had posted an analysis about the use of non-catholic
people under Pres. Diem's regime. I found it made sense. If anyone still has it
please repost.

...
[stuff deleted]
...

>Nga`y 8-5-1963, sau khi ru*o*'c Pha^.t tu*` chu`a Die^.u -De^' -de^'n
>chu`a Tu*` -Da`m ta.i Hue^', nhu~ng bie^?u ngu*~ cho^'ng -do^'i chi'nh phu?
>-du*o*.c giu*o*ng le^n. Ha`n nga`n ngu*o*`i ke'o -de^'n -da`i pha't thanh
>Hue^', ho^ to kha^?u hie^.u bo^i nho. che^' -do^. Ngay lu'c -do' hai
>kho^'i cha^'t no^? -da~ -du*o*.c -da<.t sa<?ng ga^`n bu*'c tu*o*`ng cu?a
>-da`i pha't thanh no^? tung la`m 8 ngu*o*`i che^'t va` 14 ngu*o*`i bi.
>thu*o*ng. Pha^.t tu8?pha^?n no^. tu*o*?ng ra<`ng ca?nh sa't -da~ ne'm
>lu*.u -da.n de^? -da`n a'p. Ke^' hoa.ch -da~ tha`nh co^ng  ! Co' ngu*o*`i
>thi` ba?o VC ga`i cha^'t no^? Co' ngu*o*`i thi` ba?o no' na<`m trong ke^'
>hoa.ch cu?a o^ng ba.n -do^`ng minh. Du` ai ga`i cha^'t no^? -di nu*~a.
>Ke^'t qua?va^~ co' 2 ke? thu? lo*.i : My~ va` VC.; va` 2 na.n nha^n : o^ng
>Diem va` Pha^.t tu*? la^m na.n.

Say anything but do not say that the protest of the Vietnamese buddhists wasn't
genuine. Do you know why people came to Tu*` -Da`m pagoda? Do you know what had
happened before that? Did the flag removal incident at Hue' ring any bell to
you? And various incidents committed by the Ngo's family before that?

>Trong cuo^'n sa"ch nhan -de^` *VN -dau thu*o*ng* cu?a ta'c gi?a Pierre
>Darcourt co' -doa.n nhu* sau :
>TT Ngo-Dinh-Diem la` ngu*o*`i ba^'t -do^.ng -do*'i thie^n vo*'i co^.ng
>sa?n. Tuy la` mo^.t chi'nh kha'ch co^ng-gia'o ra^'t mu*.c thanh lie^m va`
>ta^.n ti`nh ye^u nu*o*'c. O^ng Diem cu~ng bi. ta^'n co^ng, ro^`i bi. ha.
>be^. ba<`ng mo^.t chie^'n di.ch bo^i lo.; mo^.t chie^'ndich -du*o*.c to^?
>chu*'c ra^'t tinh vi, la^'y Pha^.t gia'o la`m -die^?m tu*.a -de^? cho^'ng
>-do^'i, to^' ca'o tham nhu~ng, la.m quye^`n, gia -di`nh tri. Cuo^.c -die^`u
>-do^.ng na^`y -du*o*.c chi? huy tu*` ha^.u tru*o*`ng, nhu*ng la.i do chi'nh
>tay ngu*o*`i My~ la`m, khie^'n cho VN la^m ca?nh ho^?n loa.n va` chie^'n
>tranh ta'i pha't.

Is the above NOT excerpts from foreign books?

>Cu*.u gia'm -do^'c CIA, William Colby, trong cuo^.c pho?ng va^'n cu?a
>tua^`nba'o Express, -da~ tuye^ bo^' nhu* sau :
>A^'p chie^'n lu*o*.c cu?a o^ng ta (O^ Diem) ma` chu'ng to^i -da~ khai
>trie^?n la` chi'nh sa'ch to^'t -de.p nha^'t. Chi'nh no' -da~ la`m ngu*o*`i
>da^n que^ tha^'y co' ly' do -de^? chie^'n -da^'u, co' tinh tha^`n -de^?
>cho^'ng cu*. la.i ca'cco^.c ta^'n co^ng cu?a qua^n -di.ch va` ho. bie^'t
>ra<`ng ho. -du*o*.c ye^?m tro*. ve^` ma<.t qua^n su*., kinh te^' va`
>chi'nh tri..., to^i tinh ra<`ng ne^'u o^ng Diem co`n ta.i chu*'c thi`
>chie^'n tranh -da~ co' mo^.t lo^'i thoa't kha'c. To^i tinh ra<`ng -da'ng
>le~ chi'nh sa'ch a^'p chie^'n lu*o*.c -da~ co' the^? tha`nh co^ng...,
>-da'ng le? pha?i tie^'p tu.c u?ng ho^. o^ng Diem.

And neither is this one above? Where's the so called Vietnamese documents that
the poster of this thread refered to in his/her initial opening:

>	"Recognizing that many articles take excerpts from foreign books while
>ignoring Vietnamese documents. I took part of a published letter by
>Ton-That-Binh sent to a newspaper recently. If we just only base
>on foreign documents to research about Ngo, it is still not enough to have
>an insight of a story. Let us look at another side of that story; judgment
>is yours. I think all SCVers can read Vietnamese. I apoligize to Mr. TTB
>not to let him know I use his published letter to help Vietnamese to have
>another look at Ngo-dinh-Diem."

>Ngay ke? thu` cu?a co^' TT Diem la` o^ng Ho^`-chi'-Minh cu~ng pha?i co^ng
>nha^.n :
>Du` sao o^ng Diem cu~ng la` mo^.t ngu*o*`i ye^u nu*o*'c, tuy ye^unu*o*'c
>theo ca'ch cu?a o^ng a^'y.
>
>Cuo^'n sa'ch Trung hoa vie^'t ve^` hoa.t -do^.ng cu?a o^ng Diem tu*`
>1945-1950 ( ba`i cu?a o^ng Phan-xua^n-Huy) cho tha^'y o^ng Diem la` nha`
>a'i quo^'c ta`i ba, co' -du*o*`ng hu*o*'ng chi'nh tri. sa'ng suo^'t.
>
>Co^' TT Ngo-dinh-Diem pha?i la` ngu*o*`i la?nh -da.o ta`i ba ne^n mo*'i
>-du*o.*.c -di'ch tha^n TT Eisenhower ra ta^.n phi tru*o*`ng Andrew -do'n
>tie^'p (1957). Pho' TT My~Johnson -da~ nhie^.t lie^.t ca ngo*.i TT Diem
>nhu* la`mo^.t vi. la~nh tu. A'-cha^u ngang ha`ng vo*'i thu? tu*o*'ng
>Churchill, ta`i ba no^?i tie^'ng the^' gio*'i.....

;-)

...
[stuff delete]
...

>Conclusion :
>
>Alas ! After Ngo's regime, Vietnam fell in hands of hooligans who just knew
>how to use guns and did not study engough to the level of governing a country.
>These bastards did not have any good strategy to deal with a skillful
>Ho-Chi-Minh. They have formed many groups to protect themselves, created
>coups d'etat and enjoyed the richness while their soldiers, day and night,
>confronted with hardship and death.I don't know why Kennedy could make a big
>mistake like that.
>
>To the next generation : we came here in fear and should take this
>opportunity to learn and travel to see everything with a patriotic eyes in
>order to make a plan for a better Vietnam. We won't come here not just to
>have a house of 400k but for studying harder than any body else. With that
>knowledge (politics, economy, sociology, sciences,...), in a future
>Vietnam, we won't let any illiterate hooligans to bring down our country
>again. We should build a democratic society, not authoritarian one.


I don't like to beat a dead horse over and over again (this stuffs have been
heavily discussed in Viet-Net not long time ago) but when someone revisited the
issue I can't help it. Here's my opinion:

	1. Pres. Diem was held responsible for the destruction of the political
structure of the South after 1954. Eliminating the barbarious Bi\nh Xuye>n was
a good action but trying to eliminate other political groups (with the secret
jailing/torturing/killings of their leaders and their core members) was a big
mistake. After his regime collapsed the South went into periods which had no
leaderships and directions. Not surprisingly those situations had been grabbed
wildly and dearly by opportunitists and traitors.

	2. How could the South under Diem win the war when:
		a. Ngo dinh Thuc, Diem's elder brother, a high ranking priest,
did business with the Viet Cong (selling them the South precious anti-biotic
medicine, rice, etc. and bribing them)
		b. Ngo dinh Can, Diem's younger brother, a mediocre person,
became the "tyran of the Central" formed his own secret service to kidnap,
torture, and kill those who dared to protest against his illegal business and
those who refused to succumb to his blackmails and extortions.
		c. Ngo ddinh Nhu, another younger brother of Diem, spit on the
harshed national law against opium smokers with his well known habit of smoking
opium himself.
		d. Later in his presidency, feeling their collapse was near
Diem and his brother Nhu tried to make deals with Viet Cong (Vietnamese
communists) in hope that they could still get something for themselves. The
1-11-63 coup broke the regime before any thing could materialize.


/cuong

Newsgroups: alt.politics.vietnamese