MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 11/19/2017 12:59:25 PM
 (1946-1999) Other 20th Century Battles    
AuthorMessage
Page 2 of 3 (Page: 1  2 3 ) 
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 2:04:44 PM
In our last discussion on Vietnam you said that while I might be the most well read person on the forum on this war it wasn't going to change your views because it was US cities that was protesting the war.

Like North Vietnamese civilians would be allowed to protest or their press would have been allowed to report it if some had tried.

Like the people of the North had any choice in the choice to continue the war. "Born in the North to die in the South," that was the slogan of the draftee to the NVA,

I remember in a discussion on Hitler and Germany in the past you ask why the world didn't know and didn't act to stop the persecution of the Jews in the 30's but you call Canadians "complicit" in supporting the US from stopping what the NVA did in Vietnam? Do you understand what Ho's program against the Montenyards was in the 50's?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 2:48:38 PM
John, surely you cannot compare the military might of Ho Chi Minh to that of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

As well, Germany was about to upset the balance of power in Europe.

The world did not go to war against the Nazi regime to defend the Jews or any of the others on Hitler's hit list.

You may be too close to this war John, to attempt an objective analysis. I understand that.

But your rationale for the US continuation of this war and entry into cannot be based on your view of Ho or of the excesses of his regime.

The US didn't go in there to stop that.

The US didn't provide the French with huge amounts of financial support as they continued their war in Indo-China, to put a stop to atrocities.

I wish you would not try to paint this war as a noble effort to stop a tyrant from committing atrocities.

We could probably come up with a short list of countries who oppress minorities within their borders but I don't see the US or anyone else sending troops into Myanmar for example, to protect the Rohingya minority from the ethnic cleansing that is going on.

And why? Because Myanmar's future and the future of the Rohingya are not that important to our countries. There are other more pressing interests for our foreign affairs departments to deal with.

Vietnam happened during an era when it was considered critical to stop the spread of communism.

But if you care for an objective and unemotional analysis of whether that was necessary given developments in the USSR and in China, after the death of Stalin, then I would like to hear your views.

Re: the Montagnard. These tribes who speak different languages or dialects have been in conflict with the Vietnamese majority for a long time.
The resentment of the Dega tribes goes back a long way.
They were different and therefore a target. Different culture, different language, different views and at times anti-Vietnamese.
Plus many were converted to Christianity.
But they were also staunch and respected allies of the US special forces who trained them.
So they were targeted by the north.

The US didn't enter the fray to protect the Montagnard either.

Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 4:40:48 PM

Quote:
"Same with the little naked girl running away from a napalm strike."
I recently discovered (nearly 50 years later) that the aircraft delivering the napalm was a South Vietnamese Skyraider, not a US aircraft.
--kp


Good to know kp. The narrative that I read said that the strike was ordered by the US commander. It doesn't make much difference really.

The South Vietnamese pilot apparently misidentified them ARVN soldier and civilians as the enemy.

But I don't think that that mattered to the people back home who were shocked to see little kids hurt in war and by our side.

The picture was published at a very stressful time of the war, 1972. Anti-war sentiment was at a fever pitch.

I am sure that intellectually, they knew that civilians get killed in war, but the sight of this little, naked kid running from the fire and saying, "too hot, too hot" was shocking to non-combattants.

Nixon on the other hand, disputed the authenticity of the photo or so I have read.

The little girl was treated in hospital in Saigon. Later in life she met the people who saved her and the international group of surgeons who provided specialized treatment later in life.

The little girl, Phan Ti Kim Phuc, didn't get out of Vietnam until she was allowed to go to Cuba to study. There she met her fiancé and together they flew to the USSR for a honeymoon. That was 1986.

The plane stopped at Gander, Newfoundland and the pair requested asylum in Canada. It was granted.

She has had a good life here and had a couple of kids. She lives not too far from Toronto in a town called Ajax and she took out Canadian citizenship in 1996. I'm glad that she lived and made it here.



EDIT:
The last news report that I read about her was that she had attended a special laser clinic in Florida in 2015 to help clean up scar tissue.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 11:09:24 PM
George it isn't the world I'm talking about its you and your views.

You stated that the world should have know what was happening to the Jews in Germany in the 30's and should have done something to stop it in a discussion over "The Night of Broken Glass" or "Krystal Nact(sp? its 30 year plus since high school German)" and the history of pograms against the Jews in Europe goes back a long way also.

Plus with respect I said what Ho was doing to the Montagnard's in the 50's in North Vietnam after the Paris Accords before they became "staunch and respected allies of US Special Forces." It was genocide only different than the Nazi version in execution. A hell of a lot of Vietnamese also converted to Christianity and they were and some ways still are persecuted.

What was one of the reason for stopping the spread of communism. Stalin's and Mao's brutality had absolutely no part right? And what happened in Cambodia was in no way related to the desire to spread communism right?

How about the stamp down on the Prauge Spring, building the Berlin Wall, the blockade of Berlin, the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Cultural Revolution in China to name a few that happened after the death of Stalin. Yep absolutely no reason to fear communism after the death of Stalin, Trump is worse right?

Edit Oh how could I forget the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan after Stalin's death.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 11:13:04 PM
George why did she need to request asylum in Canada according to you Vietnam and its people were better off under the communist North that the colonialist US and their puppets?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3446

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 1:05:57 AM
The NVA sustained huge losses to the US and ARVN forces even if they engaged in irregular warfare.

George,

 You're wrong. NVA wasn't about "irregular warfare". You have them confused with the Viet Cong.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3446

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 3:44:59 AM

Quote:
BW,

I agree there is both operational friction and a frittering away of infantry but its either that or a change in doctrine away from overwhelming firepower. Isn't it a "catch-22" in that if we drop the artillery screen we risk a higher casualty rate in the infantry which isn't going to play well with political will at home? Or is it possible to have a whole army of trained up to spec ops standards?
--John R. Price


John,

 Given the nature of recent battlefields, I think you are correct that artillery needs the security troops. I'm trying to think of previous wars in which this would have been the case, but I can't ... going back in time to the period of irregular warfare in the U.S. Army prior to Vietnam, one reaches, I believe, the Indian Wars (or the campaigns in the Philippines), and I think the artillery was in any case close to the infantry in those days. Put differently, the separation of the artillery from the infantry came about as a result of being able to fire at targets the artillery couldn't see -- World War I or thereabouts. Of course, detailing infantry to other duties is nothing new. Quite a few infantry battalions from many nations were detailed to secure the LoC in NW Europe in 1944-45.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 6:34:03 AM

Quote:
The NVA sustained huge losses to the US and ARVN forces even if they engaged in irregular warfare.

George,

 You're wrong. NVA wasn't about "irregular warfare". You have them confused with the Viet Cong.

Cheers

BW


BW I am aware that the NVA was the army of North Vietnam and was well supplied by the Chinese and I think the USSR.

But I thought that part of their strategy was to slowly infiltrate to the south using the Ho Chi Minh trail, and laying low and perhaps assisting the Viet Cong until such times as they were ordered to attack bases or towns in multiple locations.

So how did the NVA and the Viet Cong co-ordinate their strategy, if not their battle tactics?


Cheers,

George

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3446

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 7:29:59 AM
George,

 Many of the VC actions were independent (tactically) of those of the NVA. The VC are the classic icon of the communist soldier in the war -- thought of as clad in black, rubber shoes cut out of tires, etc. But the VC, except for Tet, were practically background noise against the use of conventional forces, operating conventionally, and ultimately proving decisive. The VC was very much a problem, but more for route and area security, as well as their assaults on the government officials and other presence of the RVN authority.

 The NVA was a thoroughly regular force. The only thing "irregular" about engagements with them was they could use theoretically neutral territory to shelter in ... one of the absurdities of the war. But their tactics and operations were not irregular: they were conventional attacks using infantry and artillery. Against other Asian forces, they were generally victorious. Against American, South Korean, and Australian forces, they generally were not, and by "victorious", I mean in the sense of single battles. Of course, the entire war considered, they were victorious.

 Post-Tet, the VC was a shadow of what it had been, and those were the decisive years of the RVN's defeat. When Saigon fell, the VC had practically nothing to do with it -- it was NVA conventional operations that destroyed the ARVN and seized Saigon. All of the use of guerillas and chatter about "people's warfare" was nothing but softening-up for regular forces (which Hanoi well understood was the decisive arm) to effect a true invasion of the south.

 Yes, the USSR was involved as well, although not nearly as much as the PRC. Consider this quote:


Quote:
[In Laos] The following morning Quinim Pholsena, the minister of information whom Souvanna Phouma had left behind, flew to Hanoi accompanied by Phoumi Vongvichit, the chief Pathet Lao negotiator, and Lieutenant Deuane Sunnalath, Kong Le's deputy, on a mission to seek Soviet and North Vietnamese military aid, which began arriving the following day on Soviet aircraft.
[Read More]

 This was in December 1960, well before the arrival of U.S. Marines in the RVN. It is facts like these that make clear this regional conflict was anything but a simple "civil war". It was a proxy war of the communist East versus the capitalist West, mainly represented by the USA. It is facts like these that make me think the "1968 protester version of the Vietnam War" (which unfortunately has far too much acceptance) is a hugely oversimplified, and misleading, depiction of the war.

 I really don't care if one approves of what the USA did in its approximately 20 years of involvement in the southeast Asian regional war, but it would tremendously simplify discussion of the war if more of its background, geographical scope, and changing nature over time was better understood. Relying on distorted anecdote is no way to grasp any kind of history.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 8:16:52 AM
Get a grip John. You're putting words in my mouth.


Quote:
You stated that the world should have know what was happening to the Jews in Germany in the 30's and should have done something to stop it in a discussion over "The Night of Broken Glass" or "Krystal Nact(sp? its 30 year plus since high school German)" and the history of pograms against the Jews in Europe goes back a long way also.


No. I said that the world did not go to war in Europe to protect the Jews. You said yourself that pogroms against the Jews go back a long way in Russia and other European countries but the west did not intervene.

Don't forget that your country and mine refused to accept a boatload of Jews trying to escape the tyranny of Nazi Germany.

I think that you need to rethink the reasons why the British and Commonwealth went to war in 1939.

The US entered the war in full because they were attacked by the Japanese.

And again, North Vietnam was not Nazi Germany. The two regimes had very different objectives.



Quote:
Plus with respect I said what Ho was doing to the Montagnard's in the 50's in North Vietnam after the Paris Accords before they became "staunch and respected allies of US Special Forces." It was genocide only different than the Nazi version in execution. A hell of a lot of Vietnamese also converted to Christianity and they were and some ways still are persecuted.


Yes and that persecution seems to be a feature of many of the cultures in Asia. Minorities are targeted.
Please focus on the point that I was making.
The French and the US did not enter Vietnam to protect the Dega tribes.

The US and its allies, including Canada, had determined that there was a co-ordinated, world wide, communist organization that was determined to spread that ideology around the world.

Stalin, our ally, had set up a buffer zone of puppet states that separated the USSR from the western democracies and had closed the doors.

And so US foreign policy determined that it was necessary to thwart communism wherever it seemed that it was making inroads.

Remember at the Yalta Conference that Stalin had agreed to remove his troops from Indo-China and so did the US. With GB they agreed to divide the peninsula to prepare for free elections in Vietnam.

When the communists in the north of Korea attacked the south Truman sent in US troops. The UN agreed to send in troops to Korea (thanks to a USSR boycott of the UN at the time).

EDIT: As BW mentioned, even if the UN determined that an international force was needed in Vietnam, it is quite likely that the USSR would have vetoed the resolution which they could not do with Korea because they had skipped out.



John, why did the US and the west fear communism?

I mentioned before that your emotions get the better of you and so you list a litany of oppressive tactics by the USSR and China. Do you do so to prove that these were unsavoury regimes. Unnecessary. We know that. But it doesn't explain why the US went into Indo-China or more importantly why it stayed so long.

I don't recall ever denying that these repressive things happened.

But I think that it is fair to examine the reasons why the US was so anti-communist and why it spent so much political capital in raising the ire of its people against this ideology.


Quote:
What was one of the reason for stopping the spread of communism. Stalin's and Mao's brutality had absolutely no part right? And what happened in Cambodia was in no way related to the desire to spread communism right?


I am suggesting that there were other reasons why the US became so virulently anti-communist. So if you would just calm down a little, we could have a good discussion about it.

I contend that there was a clash of ideologies that spooked the west.

1. We all had elements in our cultures who, perhaps through rose coloured glasses, saw the ideology of communism to be a solution to the problems evident in our democracies. These were internal supporters of social change.
The Great Depression was a catalyst for political change and those in power feared those workers clamouring for change to a more socialist system.

2. The Russian Revolution of 1917 scared the hell out of all the western democracies and republics because the ruling class had been successfully challenged and killed off. Fear of the Soviets ensued and grew.

3. The socialists in the US may not have wanted a strict communist system but they wanted a change to the democracy that wasn't serving them well. Post war, Stalin announced that an alliance of strict communists with left leaning groups was fine because both were fighting fascism. There was a spike in membership in the US Communist Party. If communism was a step too far initially, it became more acceptable if it seemed that Stalin wasn't out to destroy other leaf leaning movements.

4. The Gouzenko Affair. Perhaps not well known in the US but in Sept. of 1945, a low level cipher clerk in the Soviet embassy, defected to Canada carrying highly classified documents. The documents proved the existence of a sophisticated Soviet spy network operating in the UK and in Canada. They had infiltrated the UK/Canada nuclear research project. They were stealing important information on nuclear bomb research.
US and British representatives came to Canada and were shocked at the boldness of the Soviets.
Canada arrested a number of British and Canadian citizens. Arrests were made in the USA and a search was on for communist spies.

The start of the "Red Scare" or "Red Menace" and indeed, the Cold War can be traced to the Gouzenko Affair.


Any positive feelings toward a former ally disappeared completely. There was anger toward the Soviets that they would dare to infiltrate the inner workings of western governments.

The response in the US, in retrospect, was over the top.

Government loyalty boards examined the beliefs and associations chosen by citizens.

Loyalty oaths were demanded. Jobs were lost because of political beliefs.

Books considered to be "leftist" were pulled off the shelves of many school and public libraries in some states.

These were repressive tactics and in a democracy. We have to acknowledge that.


My point is that the US did not send troops to these various places like Korea and Vietnam to protect minorities like the Montagnard.

With the red scare in full force, it was considered prudent to stop what appeared to be expansion by the Soviets into proxy states.

I don't think that the US sent its best into combat to protect minorities in some place that most Americans had never heard of, John.

Now whether Ho was ever going to be a leader of a Soviet or Chinese puppet state is another debate. I think that the Vietnamese are fiercely independent. They accepted aid when it suited their purpose but did not want foreign elements in control of them or their government.
Ho was an anti-colonialist, a nationalist.


So I understand why the US may have felt the need to challenge the development of communism but I reject your contention that it was the repressive and violent tactics of the Soviets that caused the US to enter Korea and Vietnam.

With the Red Scare and the acceptance of the Domino effect, I think that the US felt that if Korea fell and Vietnam fell that who knows, perhaps Japan would succumb to internal unrest and socialists in that culture could scupper US designs to eliminate militarism and install a democratic system.

Lastly, there were developments in China and the USSR in the '50's and '60's that indicate that once they felt that their borders were secure, they could look internally to avoid unrest in their own countries. Both had failed economies and both faced domestic pressure to improve the lives of their people. They could not afford to be wasting money and political capital on foreign incursions.
As well, we know that the Soviets sought some sort of detente with the US and the west. The Soviets approached the US right after Stalin's death in 1953.

It was like the old SOB had been holding back the Soviets from suggesting some sort of accommodation with the west.

Many books have been written on the missed opportunities for peace in the post-Stalin era. The Soviets aren't innocent here.

They frequently scuppered any chances of detente by stepping in whenever one of their buffer states made rumblings of the introduction of reforms.

John, you mentioned a couple. Hungary in '56. Cuba in '63. Czechoslovakia in '68.

Did we in the west do enough to seek detente and stop the ridiculous arms race that plagues us to this day?

So the Cold War continued. I often wonder whether some sort of "peaceful co-existence" could have been achieved in those days.


Anyway, I am bouncing from topic to topic.

Perhaps it is too soon for you to discuss whether the US should have been there for so long. I know that you had relations who served there John and I honour those who serve whether I agree with the the necessity to send them to every place that they are asked to go.

Cheers,

George








BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3446

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 8:50:22 AM
George,

 Re: VC and their capabilities. I should also mention that before the US forces became conventionally engaged, the VC forces were being used aggressively and were giving the ARVN a hard time. VC effectiveness diminished over time, particularly after they gambled big in 1968 and were largely reduced to a secondary role because of their losses.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 10:18:43 AM
BW,

But even when the artillery was direct fire and with the infantry, infantry was detailed to support/screen the artillery, at least usually. Maybe we need to find a enemy that like ourselves is willing to give our artillery a ground attack proof sanctuary to fire from. Or maybe the answer is that with the technological advances the support and logistical tail has grown taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the manpower pie. I mean pre WWI how many men did it take to support a single infantryman in the field vs how many today? Wasn't it the basic fact that of the 550,000 top strength level in Vietnam only something like a quarter were actual combat troops?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 11:08:01 AM
George,

Yes you did say IN THIS DISCUSSION that the world did not go to war against Germany to stop the genocide against the Jews but in a PREVIOUS DISCUSSION you asked why the world didn't know the genocide was happening and why the world didn't put a stop to it in the 30's. My first response to you was the genocide didn't start until the war started and the "Final Solution" wasn't instituted until winter of 41. So how is the world supposed to stop something that isn't happening yet. Second I reminded you that the Nazi's tried to hide the fact once it did start. Your answer was that the world should have known and done something no later than "The Night of Broken Glass." I then pointed out the world knew about Stalin's purges and did nothing and the number of Jews killed and jailed on the "Night of Broken Glass" paled in comparison.

Yes and the Allies did not enter WWII to protect the Jews but would any European Jews have survived if the Allies hadn't entered the war?

The US and its allies didn't determine that there was a communist organization determined to spread communism Lenin founded one in 1915 and the Soviet Union funded and hosted that organization from 1919 to 1943 called first Zimmerwald Left then the Communist International or Comintern for short replaced in 1947 by the Cominform or Communist Information Bureau until the death of Stalin. It didn't have to be determined it was out there for all to see.

There never were any Russian troops in Indochina at the end of WWII Korea yes and they refuse to take troops from the Northern half of Korea. Indochina isn't a peninsula Korea is. You are mixing and matching the two separate situations and separate areas.

As for your edit the only reason the Soviets didn't veto the UN resolution for Korea is they were boycotting the UN at that point in time. So you are saying that if the Soviets hadn't been boycotting and had vetoed Canada would have stayed home and you would be calling Korea a illegal and unwanted intervention by the colonial US?

Stop trying to make this personal and blame my emotions. My Mother's death is emotional it just happened. Until you stop this tact I'm through

---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 11:12:58 AM
BW,

About the VC and their capabilities especially after Tet. I'd add that Tet made about 70% of the military arm of the VC casualties and that from that point on the majority were in fact NVA. I'd also point to the fact that the Paris Accords stipulated that all military and political members of the Viet Minh move North with him and they didn't by design. That stay behind group became the nucleus of the VC and NLF and were always under orders from Hanoi.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3446

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 1:19:21 PM

Quote:
BW,

But even when the artillery was direct fire and with the infantry, infantry was detailed to support/screen the artillery, at least usually. Maybe we need to find a enemy that like ourselves is willing to give our artillery a ground attack proof sanctuary to fire from. Or maybe the answer is that with the technological advances the support and logistical tail has grown taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the manpower pie. I mean pre WWI how many men did it take to support a single infantryman in the field vs how many today? Wasn't it the basic fact that of the 550,000 top strength level in Vietnam only something like a quarter were actual combat troops?
--John R. Price


John,

 Broadly, one aspect of the technological advances you mention is that they have overwhelmingly been adopted by our forces, to the point that practically nobody is willing to wage conventional war with us. That has led to widespread asymmetric warfare with guerilla and terrorist attacks on our military targets that are deemed (more) vulnerable -- artillery being among that. Wow, if even a quarter of that total were combat troops, that is a lot for the modern U.S. military.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 1:58:38 PM

Quote:
Yes and the Allies did not enter WWII to protect the Jews but would any European Jews have survived if the Allies hadn't entered the war?


Quite irrelevant to the discussion or your contention that the allies fought to save the Jews. If some survived it was serendipitous.

Indeed, Hitler's objectives with respect to some groups were well known. We also know that some Jews escaped before the doors were closed.

But the concern was not sufficient to bring the world to war.


Quote:
The US and its allies didn't determine that there was a communist organization determined to spread communism Lenin founded one in 1915 and the Soviet Union funded and hosted that organization from 1919 to 1943 called first Zimmerwald Left then the Communist International or Comintern for short replaced in 1947 by the Cominform or Communist Information Bureau until the death of Stalin. It didn't have to be determined it was out there for all to see.


Sorry John but what's your point here? There was universal shock at the demise of the dynasty that ruled Russia and concern for the expansion of Bolshevism.


Quote:
There never were any Russian troops in Indochina at the end of WWII Korea yes and they refuse to take troops from the Northern half of Korea. Indochina isn't a peninsula Korea is. You are mixing and matching the two separate situations and separate areas.


Indo-China is often referred to as a peninsula in many documents. As I understand it, it was meant to refer only to the French possessions to the east of Thailand.

I read my post, and it was confusing I admit. But I know where the Korean peninsula is and I choose to call Indo-China a peninsula. We may have a geography debate if you wish.

Stalin showed little interest in the Viet Minh originally. He saw them as nationalists and not die-hard communists.

And Ho, despite his visits to the USSR was a committed nationalist and not likely to bend to the wishes of the Comintern to which you referred.

When Mao's revolution won in 1949, Stalin, who had been concentrating on Europe, then threw his support behind Ho and the Viet Minh.

So I agree that there were not Soviet troops in IndoChina at the end of ww2 but at some time, the Soviets did send military advisors to the north.

The Soviets asked that the Chinese lend support to Ho.

The Chinese sent troops and some were killed in combat but I don't recall at which phase of the war that that happened.

Didn't the Soviets push Ho to sign the Peace Accords because they didn't want to get into a military conflict with the US in Vietnam?



Quote:
As for your edit the only reason the Soviets didn't veto the UN resolution for Korea is they were boycotting the UN at that point in time. So you are saying that if the Soviets hadn't been boycotting and had vetoed Canada would have stayed home and you would be calling Korea a illegal and unwanted intervention by the colonial US?


Interesting question John but it is loaded. You rarely want to consider that the US has ever taken a military step that wasn't steeped in righteousness. With Vietnam, you are particularly adamant that this war was a noble one and had to be fought.

Canada may well have stayed home as you put it if there had been no UN resolution in support of the western incursion into Vietnam.

EDIT: UN approval was one of the conditions that Canada placed upon an agreement to provide troops in Vietnam

I mentioned before that as one of the nations that pushed for the creation of the UN and as a staunch supporter, Canada may have called the US invasion, illegal. I don't know. It's a hypothetical question.

The fact that the US and four other countries can veto any UN resolution is what has rendered this institution a paper tiger. I remain more positive about the importance of the UN to prevent us from lapsing into another period of cultural nationalism. Probably being naive there.

But that was when Canada pursued an independent foreign policy and when we were less likely to follow the US into whatever military action it deemed necessary.

By "colonial US", I presume that you mean imperialist. Let me turn it back on you John. Has the US ever obtained a country or territories of other nations and ignored the wishes of the indigenous population to be independent?

Has the US ever effected regime change in any other country to assure that the government of that country would be supportive of US objectives in the region?


Quote:
Stop trying to make this personal and blame my emotions. My Mother's death is emotional it just happened. Until you stop this tact I'm through


How would I know that you had lost your mother, John? My condolences. I lost my Mom about 4 years ago. It's tough.

My reference to your emotions has to do with the Vietnam war because you will brook no criticism of US involvement in the conflict, from the reasons that the US got into it and to the fact that the US stayed in it long after the US politicians felt that the war was not winnable.

I find that your posts become progressively less objective and your anger more palpable, every time that the subject of Vietnam comes up.

And anyone, read me, who suggests that opportunities for peaceful resolution were missed, becomes your enemy. To suggest that perhaps the US should not have entered Vietnam is tantamount to a declaration of war. BTW, I am suggesting that but there are many Americans who have said the same thing. About 30,000 of those came to my country because they didn't want to fight in a war that seemed to be a waste of American lives.

I am not your enemy. Nor am I anti-American because I feel that the Vietnam war perhaps was not necessary or because I cannot abide by your current President, Donald Trump, as you suggested in an earlier post.

There was no intent to imply instability on your part because of the death of your mother. I did not know.

Anyway if you're through, you're through. It has happened before.









John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 4:32:04 PM
George I posted in Yoder's Pub on July 21st asking people to pray for her. You post in there often. And your implying and saying Vietnam makes me emotional is because of my step father. As for objectivity on the subject of Vietnam your posts have none and just because many Americans agree with you doesn't mean you are right. Do you realize just how small a minority 30,000 is when talking about the total number of draft age Americans during the Vietnam War? Considering 2 million were drafted what does that tell you?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 5:06:37 PM
It tells me that 2 million people obeyed a lawful draft order. It tells me nothing about their mindset.

It doesn't tell me anything about whether those soldiers were passionate about what they were doing or whether they wanted to be there at all.

Service does not mean that some did not find the war repugnant. They did their duty and supported their mates.

However, the Burns film is not the only source that alludes to morale problems among the US forces.

John your surely haven't forgotten that the streets of your country were full of protesters and that cities were burning because of race riots partly fueled by opposition to the war.

Regarding objectivity John, you may have to tell me which parts of my statements and beliefs are not objective. Objectivity also includes bias so I confess to a particular bias. Hopefully it is an educated one.

I do not patronize when I tell you that I believe that you are the most widely read person on the forum with respect to Vietnam. I also believe that the fear of communism and its spread, ostensibly under the direction of the Soviets is probably most widely and firmly believed in your country. It may not be so in other countries.

I have tried to understand your point of view but when your posts degrade into a litany of evils committed by the North Vietnamese as the justification for the US entry into the country, I think that view is naive.

As for your Mum, well I confess that I had forgotten about the post. I think that I remember it now. And I have some idea of what you are going through. Again, my condolences.

Cheers,

George


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 11:45:25 PM
George you may well believe that "bear any burden, pay any price in the defense of freedom" is naïve claptrap but it spoke to and motivated many Americans of that generation. Members of my family who served with honor and bravery believed in those words and put their lives on the line to back them up.

Let me fill you in on something 95% of people fighting in any war find war repugnant no matter the cause.



---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 7:27:53 AM

Quote:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.



Let me fill you in on something. While the US and some of its citizens may believe in that slogan that you quoted, there are countries all over the world who are suspicious of US motives when she comes calling for support when it has been deemed time to bomb or send in ground troops.

There is far too much of that "fighting to defend our freedoms" when the opponent hasn't a chance in hell of ever compromising the freedoms won or that evolved in most of our countries. And the concept is not applied equally whenever oppression rears its head in different parts of the world.

Some are selected to be freed. Most are ignored. It all depends upon whether the US or any other large power has strategic interests in the place.

So colour me cynical when I read that wars are fought to defend freedom.

There has to be a political and strategic advantage to the commitment of troops. All the powerful nations have engaged in diplomacy by force when necessary and found justification by rationalizing that it was done for freedom.

I believe that the last "good" war that made sense, the last necessary war in which the cultures of the west were threatened was WW2.

So Kennedy's instruction, "bear any burden, pay any price" rings hollow when we continue to enter places that have not attacked us. It was part of the Kennedy Doctrine to intervene wherever deemed necessary.


Quote:
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.


Yes, we know. The US owns this hemisphere.

John, the cold war rhetoric was really ramping up at that time. Kennedy, whom I admired, was cementing his position as the great cold warrior. He wanted to increase the nuclear capacity of the US even though the US already had a clear advantage in nukes. Wasn't it Macnamara who kept telling you that the US was falling behind in nuclear capacity?

Kennedy increased the military budget greatly. It was Kennedy's policy to intervene wherever it looked as though a country experiencing internal strife, may embrace communism.

Interesting though, when push came to shove over the Cuban Missile Crisis that Kennedy and Khruschev did find some middle ground. Each gave a little to prevent a nuclear disaster. Two wise men, in the end.

Eisenhower came up with the Domino Theory that fully extended the Kennedy strategy to fight communism.

The US seemed to have followed Kennedy's philosophy for decades to the point that the US was holding its nose and supporting tin pot dictators in some countries whose only appeal was that they opposed communism. Was that also a burden to bear?

Every military incursion is justified as being done in the defence of freedom. And at the expense of whose freedom?

These quotes including the one you provided come from the same inaugural address made by JFK in 1961. It was a great speech especially when compared to the one that we just heard 9 months ago.

But from an outsiders view, JFK harkened back to the freedoms won in the Revolution. There was an element of self righteousness in that speech, as much as I liked it. The American way of life was the true path, the way of freedom.
Those who embraced the principles on which the US was founded were friends. The hand of God grants the fundamental rights of man.

I understand the links that Americans make to their founding. They embrace the mythology that all nations create about themselves. They reinforce it in their children perhaps more strongly than most of us.

So you all grow up believing things like, "we are the greatest country in the world" or "we are the freest country in the world" or our President is "the leader of the free world." And so it easy to believe that when the government calls for military action, it must be a just cause. It must be righteous.

And with the military power that reinforces those beliefs comes the associated belief that if anyone crosses the US, they will pay the price. The rhetoric out of the White House today indicates that. It is rather frightening to those who watch and wait from the outside. Kennedy has been maligned by some and he was a flawed man but he was also wise, I think.

And in that same inaugural address and in among the warnings to foes and promises to friends, JFK also said:


Quote:
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.


We could use a little of the Kennedy wisdom right now, don't you think.

I heard the speech and I have provided it here. I choose to believe that JFK was making a call for peace and extending the hand of peace.
Best to read things in context.

[Read More]

George




John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 10:20:42 AM
Hey George keep on spitting in the face of my ancestors and calling who and what they believed in self righteous crap. Absolutely no reason for me to get emotional over that.



---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 10:52:35 AM

Quote:
Hey George keep on spitting in the face of my ancestors and calling who and what they believed in self righteous crap. Absolutely no reason for me to get emotional over that.




--John R. Price


John, this is one of the most irresponsible statements that you have ever made and you make a lot of them when you get angry.

Do you think that I didn't have relatives who served in the major wars of the last century?

And you know what? They came home and began to question what their government was doing and whether they were doing the right things for the country. It was their right to do so and it is my right as well.

When your government or mine decides to send good people into war, you bloody well better have a reason that is more substantive then, "Oh, we're fighting for our freedoms."

You posted a snippet of a JFK speech and what a noble one it was. You conveniently forgot to remember the context of the speech. JFK said a lot of things in that inaugural address. He talked of peace and negotiation and yes he engaged in a little sabre rattling.

It's this kind of nonsense that makes me question your stability and inability to discuss rationally.

So you got me John. I'm finally ticked off with your misinterpretation of people's comments, with your rewording of statements, straw man questions and the creation of statements that were not said but attributed to me.

If all you got out of my post was that someone was spitting on your ancestors then you once again shut off your brain in the middle of a discussion.



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 11:51:37 AM
You were lucky not all who served came home.

Good that your ticked off now you know how I've felt since you stated posting.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:01:36 PM

Quote:
You were lucky not all who served came home.


Humour me John. Just what does this mean anyway?

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:22:15 PM
Exactly what it says some families didn't have a homecoming because their loved ones were KIA.

I'll make you a deal show me 3 legitimate documents that claim Indochina a peninsula and I will never disagree with anything you ever post again. You do realize that the definition of a peninsula is "a portion of land nearly surrounded by water and connected with a larger body by a isthmus or a piece of land jutting out into the water with or without a isthmus like the Italian Peninsula which is surrounded on three sides by water." Malaya is the peninsula connected by the Isthmus of Kra to Thailand and Indochina.

Edit Indochina was specifically Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and Laos has no boarder on water while Cambodia has one and Vietnam two. Laos has China, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam on its boarders. Cambodia has Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and the Gulf of Siam, Vietnam has Laos and Cambodia on one side, China , the South China Sea and the Gulf of Siam. Then add in that on the other side of Thailand is Burma.

I'd also add that at Yalta the deal made was that if the war in the Pacific was ongoing X number of days after the fall of Germany Russia would join in the war against Japan and Indochina was never brought up in that connection. Korea yes Indochina no because of the distance from Russian territory.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:32:25 PM
Ah, the way it was written, it sounded like a threat as in, "you were lucky that some of those men who died didn't come home".

You were lucky, as not all who served came home. I think that that better indicates what you were trying to say.

And you would be wrong. I was named after my Dad's brother who is buried in Italy, KIA as you say. Another brother was badly wounded at Dieppe and died after the war from heart complications related to shrapnel in his heart.

And I do not dishonour them by suggesting that a government must have sound reasons to make war justifiable.

And jingoistic rhetoric doesn't do it.

Do you disapprove of critics who hammer the government for its conduct of the war?


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:47:52 PM
John, your thought patterns are so disjointed that I cannot tell what you want to talk about. Now you are jumping here and everywhere.

Whether Indochina is referred to as a peninsula in some documents is not relevant to the points that I was trying to make, is it?

But go ahead, just google the term and see what comes up. Indochinese peninsula is technically incorrect because the term Indochina was coined in reference to French possessions only.

But you will find a number of references that use the term Indochinese peninsula to refer to the land mass that is south of China, and east of India.

The peninsular area is bordered by the Pacific on one side and the Indian ocean on the other. The Malaysian peninsula extends from the Indochinese peninsula.

By all means, continue with the geography lesson but it seems to be more of an attempt to prove that I gave incorrect information than to discuss the points that I made.

You can call the whole area an esker or a drumlin for all I care. What does it have to do with the discussion?

[Read More]


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 2:23:25 PM
What is relevant is that the points you were trying to make were as "technically" wrong as calling Indochina a peninsula. Indochina was not discussed at Yalta. There was no deal about occupation of Indochina made at Yalta. Yalta had nothing to do with Indochina. In fact the Soviets didn't even try to take a leading role in Indochina until after the death of Stalin in 53. The reality is that Soviet military advisers, troops, weren't sent until that point. Up until then the cooperation was between Chinese and Vietnamese Communist Party's and Mao didn't have a seat at Yalta and Russia's support came only in the form of extra support to China. That if China gave a battery of artillery and a supply of ammo for it they would get back a regiment of Soviet made artillery and a supply of ammo for it. In short you weren't even close to what actually happened. But instead of acknowledging that you choose to defend your calling Indochina a peninsula and saying that the way you wrote your description of events was confusing but not wrong. That's what ticks me off and gets me emotional
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 4:09:03 PM
Actually I believe that at Yalta, FDR proposed that Indochina be administered under a trusteeship. He was opposed to any return to colonial status.

He had proposed the idea before at Teheran and at Cairo.

He had proposed the same thing for Korea.

I believe that Stalin was in support but Churchill, still hopeful that the Empire could be saved, was not.

Chiang Kai-Chek was on board too.


The Soviet influence in Indochina was through the Chinese.

Stalin showed little interest in Indochina until the Chinese revolution and the declaration of a communist state run by Mao in 1949. Stalin had his own problems in Europe to deal with.

Stalin had turned down military support for Ho Chi Minh but after 1949, he encouraged the Chinese to help Ho.

The USSR did recognize Ho and the Viet Minh as the rulers of Vietnam. That was 1950.


I mentioned that I thought that Soviet military advisors were in Vietnam at some point in the war and I also said that I did not know at what stage.


So John, pick away at details that I may have gotten wrong. Correct them if you like. I like to learn.

But if you are going to get emotional because historical details are wrong, then why are you engaged in any discussions of issues at all.
Any errors of the sort that you wish to point out do not negate anything that I have said about Vietnam or the US involvement.

We are discussing issues related to the Vietnam war and that is what gets you emotional. You can't deal with any suggestion that is negative toward the US and its involvement or its management of the war.

Hell, John, you have even refused to accept that the Filipinos didn't want the US there and fought to get the US out. Instead you called the US domination of former Spanish colonies to be welcome and benign. No imperialism here. We're the good guys.

So why would I expect that you would say anything critical about the US position in Vietnam. You have no objectivity in this area.


Indochina, peninsula or not a peninsula??? What did you find out John? Is the area referred to as a peninsula or not?

Try to focus here John, on what is germane to the discussion. Your obsession with a geographical designation is starting to scare me.



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 10:28:03 PM
Wrong you are mixing up Korea again.

No it was about Korea at Cairo and it was a joint statement between the US, GB and China that Korea be freed from Japanese occupation/colonialism. At Yalta it was a secret agreement.

Wrong FDR left GB out of the three countries to "manage" Korea but Stalin added GB to the list.

Chiang was not on board about Indochina it wasn't mentioned but he was about Korea. (see "Korea, Case History of a Pawn" its online so just search) Plus I'm sorry but you just don't understand the Chinese=Vietnamese history to even say this.

But that isn't what you said or in effect are saying with mixing up Korea with Indochina.

I get "ticked off" and emotional when somebody won't accept that they are wrong and keep trying to claim they aren't exactly like you are still doing instead of doing the research and admitting their mistake.

No George I do accept that some Filipinos didn't want the US there and fought to get rid of us. I never said I disputed that fact as usual you see what you want to see and remember what you want to remember .

I can also deal with negative statements made about Vietnam I can't deal with you and your dishonesty and negativity about anything the US had done.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 6:57:11 AM
No I have not confused them John.

As I recall, FDR suggested a trusteeship for Korea and Indochina at Yalta.

FDR was criticized for some of his performance at Yalta and I believe he was accused of abandoning Indochina.

BTW if you want to address each point that I have made, don't start each retort with "Wrong". I and anyone else reading it have no idea as to which point you have referred.

But let's presume that you are correct and I am incorrect.

Does that mean that the questions surrounding US entry into Vietnam and the questions surrounding the length of time that it stayed are not valid?

While you pick away at little details and look for holes in chronology, you ignore the big questions.

Was the Vietnam war justified?

Was the Domino Theory ever proved to be true?

Why did the US stay in Vietnam long after it was clear that this war wasn't being fought to be won?

John, I think that the US and Canada for that matter reacted with a degree of paranoia to the Red Menace.



Quote:
I can also deal with negative statements made about Vietnam I can't deal with you and your dishonesty and negativity about anything the US had done.


John, are you a believer in American exceptionalism? There is a pattern to your reaction to any criticism of your country's motives and actions.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 9:32:08 AM
Your mixing and matching again. It was Teheran in a discussion between FDR and Stalin on colonialism and no proclimations were given nor agreements were reached. Plus the sources for this are questionable as both FDR and Stalin were long dead before it was made known by a Soviet translator. But its no secret that FDR was against a reclaiming of colonies.

The Domino Theory was partially right as Cambodia and Laos fell in quick order but then you had the Kmer Rouge madness with eventual Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia and Vietnamese-China disagreement leading to boarder clashes and the Soviet attention turning to Afghanistan.

And I don't think the Red Menace was under stated both Stalin and Mao murdered far more than Hitler without World Wars.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 5:40:44 PM
You know John, there is a possibility that you are wrong.

There are a number of sites and the book entitled "Yalta" by Plokhy both reference FDR's proposal at Yalta and in previous meetings regarding a trusteeship management system for Korea and Indochina.

It is a while since I read "Yalta" but I shall try to find it. I'm not home now. It could be that I found in in the library.

Again, whether correct or incorrect, it has nothing to do with the points that I am trying to make.

FDR was criticized for either abandoning or losing interest in trusteeship.

Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 6:58:44 PM

Quote:

Franklin Roosevelt Memorandum to Cordell Hull, January 24, 1944 from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, 4th edition, edited by Thomas G. Paterson and Dennis Merrill (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), p. 189.

I saw Halifax [Lord Halifax, British ambassador to the United States] last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country-thirty million inhabitants for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.

As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek [of China] and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of IndoChina.

Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of Indo-China is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of IndoChina are entitled to something better than that.



Quote:
Franklin Roosevelt on French Rule in Indochina, Press Conference, February 23, 1945, from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, 4th edition, edited by Thomas G. Paterson and Dennis Merrill (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), p. 190.

With the Indo-Chinese, there is a feeling they ought to be independent but are not ready for it. I suggested at the time [19431, to Chiang, that Indo-China be set up under a trusteeship--have a Frenchman, one or two Indo-Chinese, and a Chinese and a Russian because they are on the coast, and maybe a Filipino and an American--to educate them for self-government. It took fifty years for us to do it in the Philippines.

Stalin liked the idea. China liked the idea. The British don't like it. It might bust up their empire, because if the Indo-Chinese were to work together and eventually get their independence, the Burmese might do the same thing to England. The French have talked about how they expect to recapture Indo-China, but they haven't got any shipping to do it with. It would only get the British mad. Chiang would go along. Stalin would go along. As for the British, it would only make the British mad. Better to keep quiet just now.


Book by Robert Dallek

[Read More]

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 10:18:43 PM
George neither supports your claim that a concrete agreement was reached at Yalta. Plus the French would have to agree and that wasn't happening.

Also if you look at FDR day to day, its a site that has his calender and appointment books, Halifax isn't in it from Jan 9 to Jan 24th. Maybe he went to a party given for a South American president visiting or maybe he joined the Canadian Ambassador who came for a meeting.

I also agreed that there was discussion at Teheran at least as reported by a Soviet translator and said that it was no secret FDR was against the reclaiming of any colonies.

Plus involving the Russians makes no sense. What coast were they on, Korean? China would be all for it because China and Vietnam were historical enemies fighting multiple wars going back centuries. You do understand that Chinese nationalist forces were part of the occupation force in Northern Vietnam at the end of WWI and just like the British occupation force in the South fought the Viet Minh then?

It these ideas of FDR weren't going to satisfy Ho and even if fully enacted there would still be a war because Ho wanted independence only if he was the government with no influence to any other country or political philosophy. You do understand what happened in the "Great Purge" of 46 to 48? And again they were just ideas and discussions that were never agreed upon by any of the parties you are trying to claim and by the time of Yalta FDR was a dying man with but a short time to live and he knew France wouldn't agree to any of it so it was dropped. He knew that going to Yalta so as I said there were no deals about Indochina independence made at Yalta, no resolutions no nothing.

And if I may remind you implied the country was partitioned and said that Soviet troops occupied the North and Stalin pulled them out because of a deal made at Yalta which is wrong. I'm done
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 5:40:43 AM
John, I gave 3 references. The third was an excerpt from a book written by Robert Dallek.

And in that excerpt he confirms that indeed FDR did broach the subject at Yalta.

I chose the memoranda to prove to you that Indochina was indeed on FDR's mind.

The excerpt by an historian whose work is primarily about the life of Presidents is not the only one that mentions that.

I remind you that your comment was initially that FDR never discussed Indochina and that he never raised the subject at Yalta.

That was the issue over which we debated. I believe that there are a number of reports that indicate that I may be correct.

And once again, you choose to equivocate.


Beam me up Scotty

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 8:11:53 AM
George here is your statement that I said was wrong,

"Remember at the Yalta Conference that Stalin had agreed to remove his troops from Indo-China and so did the US. With GB they agreed to divide the peninsula to prepare for free elections in Vietnam"

"My response was there never were Russian troops in Indochina at the end of WWII" and "Indochina is not a peninsula."

How have you proven that statement right?????? Hell there weren't any major units of the US in Indochina at the end of WWII. A OSS team and a communications team that's it for the US. The Allied troops in Indochina were British and Chinese at the end of WWII.

And then you said that there was a agreement on Indochina at Yalta. Which you now claim right because Indochina was on FDR's mind.


Edit And the third does not prove the subject was discussed at Yalta. It proves that FDR was asked a question about Indochina in a stateroom press conference with a grand total of 3 reporters on board a US Navy ship on his way home from Yalta. ONE SINGLE QUESTION in a hour plus long press conference.

Lets see no Russian troops in Indochina. No US troops in Indochina. But Stalin and the US agreed at Yalta to remove their troops from Indochina. How was Indochina divided at Yalta and why only free elections in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos don't get independence and free elections? What did the French have to say about all this?

Those two sentences that I copied and pasted are the basis of disagreement and there isn't one thing in them right except the spelling.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 8:50:33 PM
Agreed. I was wrong about Russian troops. I do not know why I wrote it except it was from memory.

It does not mean that I do not know the difference between Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

You are wrong about Yalta and are equivocating once again. FDR did indeed discuss Indochina with Stalin. You have said that he did not. And you are incorrect if my sources are accurate.

I would like to discuss whether the US should have entered this war, whether the Domino Theory is valid, and whether the US should have stayed in Vietnam for so long.

I would like to discuss whether a level of paranoia with respect to communism exists in the US that has informed US foreign policy to this day.

Or would you like to return to some pithy and critical issue like what type of landform Indochina may be?


The basis of the disagreements that I have with you are not whether there were Soviet troops in Vietnam. It has nothing to do with chronology or minor historical details.

It has to do with your absolute refusal to consider that entry into this war may have been poorly considered and that the lives of an awful lot of good men may have been wasted, especially in the later years of the conflict when it seemed that the US had no intention of fighting to win this war.

I asked you earlier whether you believed in American Exceptionalism. Still no answer but I have no explanation other than that, that would help me to understand your hypersensitivity to any suggestion that the US has ever taken a misstep in foreign policy and military action to enforce it.


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 11:54:38 PM
Russian troops the only thing wrong in that statement but I'm the one equivocating?

I answered your questions but the last two.

No my Step-Father didn't feel he was wasting his life and I don't either.

To a degree I believe America is exceptional but not to the point that you must believe Canada is. You interrupt discussion after discussion that has nothing to do with Canada to point out Canada's contribution or why she wasn't involved and if she wasn't involved what a unworthy cause it was.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 6:02:39 AM
Yes I will tell the Canadian story if I think it relevant and I will give the Canadian perspective on an issue.

You will recall that way back on this thread, someone made a comment something like, "Canada sat this one out______whatever. " I felt that it was necessary to fill in a lot of blanks when I read that comment.


Specific to this issue of Vietnam and whether it was a necessary war, I don't think that we are going to get a contrary view from you or from people who were compelled to serve.

No soldier wants to think that his service was unnecessary or that deaths were unnecessary.


You in particular John seem convinced that the US intervenes in the affairs of others for reasons altruistic and noble. It is, respectfully, a most naive point of view.

Anyway, you don't want to discuss the issues that concern me and you have misidentified the evolution of the discussion in this thread.

So I will give you the last word, if you wish.

 (1946-1999) Other 20th Century Battles    
Page 2 of 3 (Page: 1  2 3 ) 
 Forum Ads from Google