From: CNguyen.osbu_north@xerox.com
Subject: Re: [POL] DIALOG (DDie^.n Bie^n Phu?)
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu
Reply-To: Cuong_M._Nguyen.OSBU_North@xerox.com
Organization: SCV Relay
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:03:16 GMT


Folks,

I think some parts of my previous posting had been taken out of context or had
been misunderstood. Essentially, they were the counter points to T. Tran's
posting. So you must read my posting based on the writings of T. Tran.
Otherwise you'll miss my point.

/cuong

P.S.
	I'll come back to the issue when I have more time.


--- begins included messages ----

From:	Giao Tien Vu <giao@informix.com>
In article <1992Dec7.212714.8717@news.media.mit.edu>
Cuong_M._Nguyen.OSBU_North@xerox.com writes:
>
>From:  "T. Tran" <ttran@cv3000.prime.com>
>>                      A CALL FOR A GENUINE DIALOGUE
>>
>
>>   - With the US as the superpower protector, the Diem government refused to
>>carry out the provisions of the Geneva Agreement that required a national
>>election to be held in 1956 for the US knew that in such an election, Ho
>>Chi Minh would certainly win. (Had the election taken place, there would
>>have been NO VN War, NO division of North/South VN, and NO boat people !).
>
>Sure, Ho chi Minh would certainly have won if the election were taken place in
>1956, but why didn't HCM go on with another campaign to liberate the whole
>country after the victory at Dien Bien Phu? In my opinion HCM and the
>international communists had known it better before hand. They knew that the
>USA purposely did not sign the Geneva accord. They knew that the future new
>government helped built by the USA technically and legally could avoid the
>election. So they must have figured out that the 1956 election would never
take
>place right before they signed the accord in Geneva. It was Ho chi Minh and
his
>allies who help the other side cut the country in half in 1954. If Ho was
>committed to his country he would never want to see it happen, much less make
>it happen. There was no such thing as half baked revolution in which you
>revolutionized half of the country and had to stop under pressure from
>foreigners and your allies. Had South Viet Nam have a good leader right after
>1954 the outcome would have been different.

I don't think that HCM did know beforehand that the Communists' chance in
1956 would slip out of their hands.  At the start of 1955, it was still the
French who had control over Vietnam and its Ba?o DDai government.  The USA
manipulated to gain control over the French (it was well-known that the
Bi`nh Xuye^n was financed by the French to regain their influence).  Had the
French still had influence over South Vietnamese administration, the 1956
election would be carried through.  Also, another fact needs to be counted in
the equation is that the Vie^.t Minh put lots of its bets in DDie^.n Bie^n
Phu?.
More than 20,000 casualties (elite troops).  The Vie^.t Minh needs time to
recover as well.  1954 was not a time to embark upon another war,
especially in the South where the Communist network was weaker than in the
North.

About the split of Vietnam, the Communists had to "nga^.m bo^` ho`n la`m
ngo.t" because the indifference of their allies.  Their negotiation strategy
in winning all of Vietnam was sabotaged by the Chinese's ready acceptance
of a temporarily divided Vietnam while the Soviets did not too much care to
back up the Vietnamese Communists.  Some experts had theorized that the
Communists would have gotten a better term if the Communist bloc was more
supportive.  What choice did they have?  Had they declined to sign, chances
that the French public opinion would turn supporting the French holding on
to Indochina.  It was geopolitics at work, not HCM's deeds.
...

From:	"Thinh N. Nguyen" <groucho!thinh@uu.psi.com>
HI netters:

There were many good and bad points expressed over the subject of independent
of Vietnam. In trying not to confuse the issue even more, I will use the above
two
excerps to say somthings:

>>  Well, history has a way of repeating itself. It was General Giap who led
the
>>battle that expelled the French from VN, forever and ever, regaining the
>>nation's honors that had been sullied by a century of French exploitation.
>>And you know who invited the American troops into SVN ! (Had President
Kennedy
>>not been assasinated, history might have been different !).

>Shoudl I add that it was general Gia'p with Chinese guns and ammunitions and
>Vietnamese bodies...? Frankly I admired the victory (currently a French movie
>is being made about this famous battle) but I wonder if HCM and his closest
>aids had all the sayings in the war as later proved by the signing of the
>Geneva accord.
...
I also have something I would like to say about the response paragraph. Of
course,
the bodies were Vietnamese. Otherwise, the Chinese would claimed the victory a
long time
ago. Growing up in S. Vietnam most of us were denied many truths about
sensitive
subject like Vie^.t Minh, Ho^` chi' Minh and DDie^.n Bie^n Phu? just like our
counterparts in the North were denied the truth about freedom and democracy in
the
outside world. Both of these method only make Vietnamese ignorant. Books about
these
topics that are allowed in S. Vietnam (not to mention our households) are very
subjective
to the government agenda. We can now talk openly about these subjects. Let's
use
it wisely. There are so many documentation available for us to study and make a
better
conclusion. By debate about them on SCV, we can learn more about it from our
peers.

DDie^.n Bie^n Phu? was a glorious victory not just for Vietnamese but for all
nations in the world that were suffered the atrocities of colonization. DDie^.n
Bie^n Phu? showed them how vunerable the great French, Britain ... are. It
showed
that a small, poor country with only the will of the people can defeat a mighty
nation at their own game. Everyone in the world but S. Vietnam give Vietnamese
full
credit for it but because of Vo? Nguye^n Gia'p and Vie^.t Minh I have heard
many
Vietnamese try very hard to suggest that the Chinese did all the works. The
Geneva
conference was formed under the leadership of 4 big nations and the accord was
signed by them because that the only way it can have the credential to be
effective.
If you have solid evidences to prove otherwise, I think to simply state that
the
Chinese made all the decisions is not a very good way to learn history.

I also see some netters suggested that because Ho^` chi' Minh had studied in
France, China, Soviet ... his independence is questionable. If you really want
to show his faults, then do it with thoughts and good reasonings. Don't just
say
it because someone taught you so. If you cannot do a simple task like finding
something bad to say about Ho^` chi' Minh convincely then how are you going to
convince me that you know any better than his followers.

sincerely,
Thi.nh ngo.c Nguye^~n

--- ends included messages ---
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese