From: ltran@dsp.lsil.com (Tran Thai Linh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: [HIS] Japan's Intervention 1942-1945
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:02:08 GMT
Reply-To: ltran@dsp.lsil.com
Followup-To: soc.culture.vietnamese
Organization: LSI Logic Microprocessor Group


	There is a theory that says the misery people speak of in
the North (starvation) was due mostly to American bombing of railroads.

	Until now, I cannot find anything firm that supports that theory.
All indicate that because Japan extracted a lot from Vietnam to support
its warfare industries, and the harsh policy of Japan to dictate what
to raise as crops, where to sell the crops (mostly to Japan), at what price
(cheap), make the economy collapsed.

	Also, not only Vietnam, but Manchuria, and mostly Korea have not very
fond memory of Japanese occupation in the Second World War.

	Now, to support the theory that the starvation was due to cutting
the link between North and South, making the South unable to support the
North, we must prove:
	- The North was never auto-sufficient to the point that without
		the communication links from the South, IT COLLAPSES IMMEDATELY.
		To have a starvation just 1 or 2 years after the link was
		broken (the US bombardment on railroads and roads and 
		the cities of Ha` No^.i, Ha?i Pho`ng and Sa`i Go`n started
		only in 1943), the North must depend totally in food supplied
		from the South (if the theory were true);
	- The links were used to transport food BEFORE the bombardment;

	To have a starvation, people must really have nothing to eat. Absolutely
nothing. Accounts of a whole village on the brink of starvation, move to other
villages in search for food. They only joined by other villagers because they are
starved too. Bands of weaker and weaker starved people succeeded to walk up to 
the city, and died there.

	If the commucation links were used to transport food before, then when
it is severed, one would understand that the city get starved. Many tells that
the movement was from rural to city, indicates that there is no food at the
villages either. or else, the movement should be from city to villages, and
most of the deaths must ends up in villages.

	The cities still held alright because the communcation links still worked
partially, allow the food to come in. City people are more wealthy, they could
buy and stockpile the food.

	It is much easier to understand why there was a starvation if we hear 
that the rice crops were not allowed to be planted, because Japan needs more coton
and dday to make military equipement, and peanuts were planted instead of rice
because Japan also need peanut oil. In one story, the rich people don't have
rice stocked at home, but mountains of ba'nh dda^.u (oil rich peanuts arranged
in form of cakes). Of course, we could eat peanuts for a while, but cannot 
substitute for rice: it is hard to digest after a while.

	The railroads and roads in the French Colonial Periods was used more
for military and governmental uses, more than for economical developments.
Also, the railroads are geared toward imports and exports if it is used for
economical purpose, more than it is used for regional transport of food.

	The devide to rule policy of France do discourage movement from one
region to another. Remember that the three regions were treated differently.

	And finally, why is that the starvation stops when the War ends, while
the railroads are far from rebuilt?

	THUS I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE BOMBARDMENT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE STARVATIOJN.
THE STARVATION WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF JAPANESE POLICY OVER VIETNAM, ALTHOUGH THE
BOMBING WAS ALSO A CONTRINUTING FACTOR.

	Whatever the cause, the suffering was real.
		
	In Vietnamese litterature, there are many books and stories described
the starvation of 1944-1945. The starvation was fairly recent (less than 50
years), so people who survived it back then still are alive now to tell the story. 
Magnitude of the starvation is only an estimate. Some estimate at 3 millions, 
others estimate from 500000 to 1 million (over a population of about 17 millions
back then in North Vietnam). 

	No, I am not trying to bring back bad memory, or do Japanese bashing.
That was not my intention. My intention is to show that our people did really
suffer from the Wars. Also, although interpretation of history may depends
on where we stand, we cannot bend it anyway to our will: there must be enough
evidences to support our theory.

	That brings to another point: history may repeat again, because Vietnam
is still weak, very weak.

---
____________________________________________________
Linh T. Tran
ltran@dsp.lsil.com
____________________________________________________

ps.: Japan may change its view now. They are more relied on the economy now.
	However, we have also to remember that militarism in Japan is really 
	only when Japan was economically strong.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese