Embedded Files
Date: Sep 29, 2006 6:56 AM
Subject: [Vsg] NDDiem's press secretary on the murders -- and Moyar's new book on Vietnam
I have not posted on VSG in months but still read occasional emails. I nearly fell out of my
chair when I read the recent thread on Diem and Nhu, specifically Ed Miller’s belief that
“no Americans were involved.” I decided to send an email to Mr. Ton That Thien who had
served under President Diem. His reply is copied below. You can read more about Mr. Thien at
the links below my signature. I am also attaching a Word document that contains book reviews
written by Mr. Thien which appeared in “Word Affairs” in 1999.
Additionally I am currently reading a new book by Mark Moyar titled “Triumph Forsaken: The
Vietnam War, 1954-1965” just released by Cambridge Press. My review is forthcoming. On page
273, Moyar writes: “While South Vietnam’s President was ousted and killed by certain of his
countrymen, ultimate responsibility for his fate belonged to Henry Cabot Lodge, to the
President who appointed and refused to fire Lodge, and to the individuals who were giving
Lodge information and advice on the political situation—a few State Department officials in
Saigon and Washington and a handful of resident journalists.” Of course there is much more
in the book to support the author’s assertions.
There are blurbs by William Stueck, Allan R. Millett, James Webb, Max Boot, Keith W. Taylor
and Thomas Alan Schwartz.
While Dan Duffy heads back to his farm, I will now return to my spreadsheets…
Regards,
Quang
www.quangxpham.com
---------------------------------------------------------
About Mr. Ton That Tien
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/wintersf/HareReviews.htm
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Biography/BiographyThienTon.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent on 9/28/2006 via e-mail
Dear Quang,
I respond rather late to your message of September 20 concerning the
killing of Mrs. Diem and Nhu because I just changed to a new Laptop,
and, being a total illiterate in computer matters, had to spend some
time getting acquainted with my new gadget.
I just turned 82, and I have decided that at this age, it is time to
retire for good to make room for the young whose thoughts and acts are
more relevant to preparing the future. I therefore am "out of the loop"
as far as writing, discussing, arguing, quarrelling about Viet Nam is
concerned. That is: I now just stay on the sideline and watch, rather
than agitate. But for you I shall make an exception, though limited.
During my student days at the London School of Economics, and later at
the Graduate Institute of International Affairs in Geneva, it was
drilled into my head that:
1/ You must distinguish between statements of values and statement
of facts;
2/ To get the facts, you must conduct thorough, honest, researches;
3/ A statement of value is the expression of something personal
(emotions, feelings. opinion...), and is admissible only to the extent
that it reflects the facts;
4/ To get the facts, you must conduct honest and thorough researches.
5/ You must always state your sources. And there are two kind of
sources: primary and secondary (second hand).
and personally, I am deeply convinced that, for good -- correct
and effective -- decisions, we must rely on judgments of facts than
judgments of value.
Against this background, arguments presented by most of the discussants
of your group [VSG] seem to me to be of low convincinbility, because they
were drawn from secondary sources, the American media and academia, and
these circles were dominated by the "politically correct" elements....,
who were anti-Diem and anti-South Viet Nam.
On this case I can mention my personal experience:
1/ Around 1977-78, one evening, I had dinner in Paris at a
restaurant owned by General Nguyen Khanh (who became ex-chief of State
after deposing General Duong Van Minh in a coup in early 1964). I asked
him: "Who killed Mr. Diem?" He replied: "Everyone present at the big
meeting (of the generals) in Dalat following the coup (against General
Minh) knew it, because the matter was brought up at that meeting." I
asked: "Who is "everyone?" Khanh did not reply.
2/ Before 1975, in Saigon, I asked General Minh several times: "Who
killed Mr. Diem?" He always eluded the question and simply replied: "The
coup was a collective act, so the responsibility is also collective."
But in 1980-81, in Paris, one evening, I asked him the same question
again. He replied. 'It's the Dai Viet". He did not give any detail.
But I would like you to use logic in deciding: Who killed Mr. Diem
and Nhu?
- No VN general, or anybody else in Viet Nam at the time,
would stage a coup, or even think of a coup, without being sure that it
would have the backing of the American Government. The VN
Generals would not have staged a coup without firm assurance that the
American Government supports it, in particular, that the Government
established by them after the coup would be recognised by the US
Government and would continue to receive aid from the US. That assurance
was demanded by Minh, and given by Lodge.
- The Vietnamese Generals would not have authorised the
killing of Mr. Diem and Nhu if the US Government had made it very loud
and clear to them that they would have taken the necessary precautions to
that end.
- Under the US Constitution, US Government means The President
of the US, the final authority for all decisions.
- The President of the US then was Kennedy.
- So, in fact, it was Kennedy who killed Mrs Diem and Nhu. Period.
Sincerely
Thien
From: Tuan Hoang <thoang1@nd.edu>
Date: Sep 29, 2006 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vsg] NDDiem's press secretary on the murders -- and Moyar's new book on
Vietnam
Dear Quang et al.,
I am not qualified to answer the question on the ultimate liability for the deaths of Diem
and Nhu. But I
think that a distinction must be made between (1) Did the Kennedy administration support the
1963 coup?, and
(2) Did it encourage or order the generals to kill Diem and Nhu (instead of, say, sending
them into exile or
imprisonment)?
Research has shown that the Kennedy administration clearly supported the coup - and the
South Vietnamese
generals likely would not have carried it out without that support. So the anwer to (1) is
yes. But
evidences are at best blurry and at worst negative on question (2). With due respect to Mr.
Ton That Tien,
his conclusions based on "logic" are no more than speculative, especially since he showed no
documental
evidences to support them. But I look forward to read the new Moyar book - as well as Alex
Winters' _The
Year of the Hare_.
Finally, before Sophie Quinn-Judge and others again remind us that this debate often goes
American-centric,
may I reinstate that countless non-Communist South Vietnamese in November 1963 were happy to
see Diem gone. In
front of me is a copy of Nguyet Dam and Than Phong, _Chin Nam Mau Lua duoi Che Do Gia Dinh
Tri
Ngo Dinh Diem_ [Nine Bloody Years under the Family Rule of Ngo Dinh Diem], published in
March 1964 in Saigon.
The volume is merely one of many anti-Diem books and articles by non-Communist Vietnamese
that came out after
the coup. It's possible that many South Vietnamese non-Communists and anti-Communists would
mourn Diem's
assassination years later. But in 1963 and 1964, they hardly shed a tear for him - but
instead rejoiced at
his overthrow and even assassination.
~Tuan
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Date: Sep 29, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Vsg] NDDiem's press secretary on the murders -- and Moyar's newbook on Vietnam
First, my apology to Ed Miller and list for not responding to the several very interesting
issues that Ed raises as well as the new facts that he provides. As I am having the pleasant
surprise of being visited by several friends out of state and out of the country, I will
reply in the next few days.
For this, I am in agreement with Tuan Hoang. I have read many of Mr. Ton That
Thien's articles in the Vietnamese media, and am always surprised by his single-minded
defense of the Can Lao party and their activities in Vietnam, something with anyone with
some familiarity with the situation would find that very much beyond the support of facts,
if not reason.
Nguyen Ba Chung
From: Thomas Jandl <thjandl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] NDDiem's press secretary on the murders -- and Moyar's new book on
Vietnam
What I really learn from this statement by Mr. Tien is how hard it is to separate normative
and empirical statements -- however much the London School of Economics may emphasize the
need to do so.
Page updated
Report abuse