Vietnam War Commemoration
[Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Chuck Searcy chuckusvn at gmail.com
Sat Mar 15 19:20:05 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] 2 calls for applications
Next message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drew,
I'm sure you will not mind if I pass this Old Hacks posting along to the
Vietnam Studies Group (VSG) list, because I'm sure it will spark some
useful and enlightening exchanges as this conversation about the 50th
anniversary commemoration of the war continues to get increased traction.
Even a half century later, the public discussion that we never really had
about the war -- certainly we did not come to any useful conclusion or
consensus -- could be helpful in dealing with the foreign policy tar babies
that we seem unable to get loose from, even today.
I know that Nick's book and some of his essays have been discussed on VSG.
I don't think Mark Ashwill's Huffington Post piece has been circulated yet,
so at the risk of duplication I'm forwarding this on with both of your
attachments.
I'm also pleased that Joe Galloway will be part of the screening and
editing process for the Pentagon. Joe is about as straight-shooting as
they come, and he has a low tolerance for image-making, deception, and
hyperbole.
CHUCK
Thanks, Chuck Searcy. Great articles by Nick Turse and Mark Ashwill. They raise fundamental issues on the nature of US politics, the mainstream media, and the manufactured consents of the national security state.
By the way, you can reference the originals at:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175808/tomgram%3A_nick_turse,_the_pentagon_makes_history_the_first_casualty/
and
Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-a-ashwill/vietnam-war-50th-anniversary_b_4500456.html<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-a-ashwill/vietnam-war-50th-anniversary_b_4500456.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share>
In the Realnews, there is a 20 minutes interview of investigative reporter Gareth Porter on how he moved from a Time magazine version of America to its critique and exposer. To him, it began with the Vietnam war and continues with the Iraq war and the neocon attempt to start a war with Iran:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11604
?
Umass Boston
Chung Nguyen
Andrew Pearson pearson.drew at gmail.com
Mon Mar 17 09:52:13 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who teach students about the war in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, would it make sense to use the Commemoration timeline for a writing/research assignment? Are there any mistakes, omissions, in this timeline?
The homepage for the Commemoration is here:
http://www.vietnamwar50th.com
Some background: 2025 is the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the war in 1975. Sixty-five million dollars will be spent from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. H.R. 1585 (Public Law 110-181) with the Secretary of Defense’s office developing the programs and having the authority to spend. The plans started in 2012, so that’s $5 Million per year for thirteen years.
Andrew Pearson, TV news and documentaries during the war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick look at the "history" page shows little or no introspection,
analysis or conflicting views, but a mere listing of events. And, as usual,
there is little from the Vietnamese perspective. The goal, it seems, is to
glorify the war and honor the U.S. troops. Too bad not even a small
portion of the $65,000,000 couldn't be used for useful academic research
and assessment.
Tom Miller
Hello VSG:
I must agree with many of the people who have commented on the
Commemoration website. Once again, we miss an opportunity to get it right.
After reviewing the Timeline on the Commemoration website, I wrote to them
using their contact page. Here's what I wrote:
The Vietnam War Commemoration was established to pay tribute to the 3
million men and women who served in Vietnam. As one of those 3 million, I
want to say that this website, this "tribute", this "remembrance," is an
insult to the men and women who served and died in Vietnam, because it does
not serve the truth. In the guise of a tribute, it is perpetuating the very
lies that got us into the war to begin with. For instance, the very first
page of the so-called "Interactive Timeline" replays the whole bogus
process that led to America's longest running and most disastrous foreign
policy error and the deaths of 58,000 Americans and 3 to 5 million
Vietnamese. Each item of the timeline opens like a book, with text on one
side and a picture on the other. The first page of entries says: in 1945 Ho
Chi Minh declares independence (not mentioning that he quoted the American
Declaration of Independence or showing his picture); then it says an
American Lt. Colonel Dewey is mistaken for a Frenchman and killed by the
Viet Minh (it shows Dewey's picture getting a medal, in fact the only
picture in these first entries); then China and Russian recognizes Ho Chi
Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam; then there is a misleading statement
that France endowed "independent" statehood on former Emperor Bao Dai's
Vietnam; then somebody in the White House signs NSC 64, vowing to check the
spread of communism in Southeast Asia; then the last entry on the page
states that Truman increases military aid to pro-French Vietnam. So there
you have it. In the first few entries, the timeline has reenacted our
uninformed, paranoid march to war. Nowhere in the timeline does it say that
Americans fought alongside (and admired) Viet Minh troops against the
Japanese invaders during World War II. Nowhere in that timeline does it say
that Truman ignored several appeals from Ho Chi Minh to help the hopeful
independence movement after the war, forcing the Viet Minh to seek help
elsewhere. Nowhere does it state that we backed France's desire to
re-colonize Vietnam in order to gain the country's aid against the Russian
threat in Europe. Nowhere does the timeline state that the "domino theory"
was just that---a "theory"---and policies based on the theory were
misguided and have since been proven wrong. We fought and died in Vietnam
for a lie. We dishonor veterans and all Americans if we say otherwise.
America is supposed to stand for truth. If this commemoration is supposed
to be the final word on the Vietnam War, please hire a few real historians,
not propagandists or apologists, to write the history. To those who are
responsible for this commemoration, please know that, as one who served in
Vietnam, I am ashamed for my country all over again.
Thanks VSG, a bastion of reasoned discussion, and a great resource serving
truth!
Larry Johnson
Producer, Lawrence Johnson Productions
www.ghostmoneythefilm.com
Revolutions and civil wars tend to be messy and violent… French butchery, internecine butchery, US style… I was doing some figuring the other day, that the US dropped about two hundred a fifty pounds of high explosive for every man, woman and child in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Ho, not a nationalist? Interesting. Who do you research for, may I ask, and when were you in South Vietnam during the war?
Andrew Pearson, TV news and documentary producer
On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:21 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl at tx.rr.com> wrote:
Your admiration of Ho is rather quaint. He was a dedicated communist and a butcher of the first order. He was never a nationalist, although he pretended to be one to seduce many of the true Vietnamese nationalists before killing them.
Paul Schmehl
Independent Researcher
phuxuan700 at gmail.com phuxuan700 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 09:23:41 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for being late but if I may, I'd like to have two short comments:
1. I believe there were war crimes committed by all sides in the Vietnam
War. However, in the West, most have been talked about war crimes committed
by the US and RVN side.
What could be the reason, lack of materials, lack of serious researches ?
2. On Ho, instead of focusing on whether he was a nationalist or a
communist, my thought is more on whether Ho was a weak, very weak leader or
an opportunist.
Ho was a hero of mine at one time, years ago.
The "problem" is I have a passion for history, a passion to search for the
truth (or for facts, as part of my training).
Based on I have learned about Ho in the past 30-plus years, my view has
changed!
Best regards,
Calvin Thai
Independent Researcher
Calvin, I think a good place to begin for your answers is David G. Marr: Vietnam 1945: The Quest for Power, paired with Nick Turse: Kill Anything that Moves.
Andrew Pearson, NBC News producer during the war
On Mar 27, 2014, at 12:23 PM, phuxuan700 at gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for being late but if I may, I'd like to have two short comments:
1. I believe there were war crimes committed by all sides in the Vietnam War. However, in the West, most have been talked about war crimes committed by the US and RVN side.
What could be the reason, lack of materials, lack of serious researches ?
2. On Ho, instead of focusing on whether he was a nationalist or a communist, my thought is more on whether Ho was a weak, very weak leader or an opportunist.
Ho was a hero of mine at one time, years ago.
The "problem" is I have a passion for history, a passion to search for the truth (or for facts, as part of my training).
Based on I have learned about Ho in the past 30-plus years, my view has changed!
Best regards,
Calvin Thai
Independent Researcher
I haven't yet read Marr's Vietnam, but I would not recommend Turse's Kill
Anything, which I have read. It's riddled with ridiculous errors
indicating sloppy research as well as oversimplifications and gross
exaggerations.
A couple of examples: On page 9 Turse claims that the US supported South
Vietnam "until Saigon fell to the revolutionary forces in 1975". While
this is literally true, it elides the reality that aid was reduced to
almost nothing. Aid to SVN was severely restricted by Congress in 1974.
By the end of that year RVN forces were reduced to such small rations of
ammo and grenades that they could not fight and win a major battle.
On page 118 Turse quotes a supposed Vietnam vet whom he interviewed: "You
got an angry 18-year-old kid behind the gun and he's just seen his buddy
gettin' killed. And he's not gonna have no remorse for who's on the
receiving end of that 60 caliber machine gun."
There is no such thing as a 60 caliber machine gun, and anyone who had been
through basic training would know that. Turse's interviewee obviously
never served in the military. He was probably thinking of the M60 (what we
now call a SAW - Squad Automated Weapon), but the M60 is a 30 caliber
weapon (actually 7.62 caliber, but let's not nit pick), not 60.
Those are just two. I can list quite a few more.
I've been working on a rebuttal to his work for a while now.
(Note to researchers: when dealing with military ALWAYS demand that they
give you name, rank and serial number and ALWAYS get their DD-214 from the
VA Records Office. That way you can weed out the impostors with fake
DD-214s before making embarrassing mistakes public.)
There are tons and tons of impostors who claim to have served in Vietnam,
and they all have stories to tell. None of them should see the light of
day in any serious work of historical research.
Turse claims the title of his book was official US policy. Yet he doesn't
(and can't) produce a single official document attesting to that fact.
When the basis of your thesis is unprovable, you probably shouldn't write
the book.
Paul Schmehl (pschmehl at tx.rr.com)
Independent Researcher
Paul,
In the second paragraph, you offer a popular argument that seems to be
bandied about freely with little followup discussion. So, let me go over
some of the information that contradicts that argument, and let me know what
you think.
I believe that the recollection that the U.S. “cut off funding” to RVN is
based mainly on the denial of the supplemental appropriation that the
administration requested. This money would not have reached Vietnam before
the fall of Saigon—in fact, there was still quite a bit of money “in the
pipeline” from the regular appropriations when Saigon was occupied by the
PAVN.
In addition, my understanding from reading several histories of the war, is
that in 1975, the U.S. was still providing a great deal more aid to the RVN
than the Communist bloc was providing to the DRV. William Turley (The Second
Indochina War) notes that the Soviet Union and China sharply decreased their
own military aid to North Vietnam after the Paris Agreement and provides
U.S. estimates showing that arms shipments to the RVN were nearly four times
as great as those to the DRV in 1974 and 1975 (page 211, 2009 edition).
Of related interest is the debate in Congress in the spring of !975, in
which it was proposed that the U.S. gradually reduce its level of assistance
to something approximating what the DRV was getting. This debate was cut
short by the events of April 1975.
In reading accounts of the RVN’s collapse in 1975, I have not found anything
as yet that shows that the ARVN suffered from a dropoff in U.S. aid. There
are occasional references to rationing ammunition, but this also has to be
taken in context with the well-documented supply problems connected with
corruption and the black market. (The authors of the Palace Files also note
that the logistics of the RVN defense were sorely hurt when the official who
apparently was essential to the supply system took leave to attend to family
business.)
So, we cannot automatically assume that a shortage at this place or that
place resulted from the decline in U.S. aid. It’a also worth remembering
that we left the RVN with an air force that rivaled that of many larger
nations, and these aircraft were apparently in good enough repair that they
were used against the ARVN in the latter stages of the offensive after being
captured by the PAVN.
Now, personally, as a “Saigon boy” going back to 1958, I believe that the
Communist takeover in the South was a tremendous disaster, but I also think
that the large-scale U.S. military intervention wreaked havoc on the economy
and the society, and paved the way for the final collapse. As to whether
wiser and less intrusive policies might have led to a better government
south of the DMZ, one can speculate, but I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.
(See “nation-building” under Iraq and Afghanistan.)
:: Mike High
????
Khuê van các
Independent Research Facility
Great Falls, VA
USA
Mike,
You wrote, *"I also think that the large-scale U.S. military intervention
wreaked havoc on the economy and the society, and paved the way for the
final collapse. As to whether wiser and less intrusive policies might have
led to a better government south of the DMZ, one can speculate, but I doubt
we’ll ever know for sure. (See “nation-building” under Iraq and
Afghanistan.)"*
On the society: in his memoirs almost 15 years ago, Mai Chí Th?, Lê Ð?c Th?'s
brother, Politburo member, one of the most powerful persons in South
Vietnam after 1975, openly complained about a serious decay in moral
values. According to Mai Chí Th?, among other things, some women in the
1990s did not have values as good as those of "me Tây, me M?" decades
before that!
On the economy: if South Vietnam was given a chance after the Paris Peace
Accord being signed, I have no doubt South Vietnam would be neck to neck
with Taiwan, South Korea, etc, nowadays. (Huy Ð?c's "Bên Th?ng Cu?c" can
help shed some light on the issue).
Therefore, we may agree to disagree on these two points! :-)
Calvin Thai
pschmehl at tx.rr.com pschmehl at tx.rr.com
Fri Mar 28 22:13:03 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest you begin by reading Lewis Fanning's Betrayal in Vietnam and George Veith's Black April.
Here's a few details:
In 1970, Congress passed the Church-Cooper amendment, which barred direct military support to Cambodia and anywhere else outside the territorial borders of Vietnam. The North, of course, was under no such restrictions. So Congress hamstrung the war effort and granted to North Vietnam free passage within the sovereign territory of Cambodia with no consequences. GVN's western border was unprotected.
In August 1973 Congress passed the Church-Case Amendment. the US was no longer permitted to provide direct military support. So, unlike the 1972 offensive, the GVN was on its own to provide CAS (close air support) to any operations, even inside its own territorial borders.
In December 1973, the US stopped supplying ammunition to GVN. In response, ammo was rationed. By 1975, the ration was 4 rounds of 105mm ammo a day per weapon, 2 rounds of 155mm ammo per day, 2 hand grenades and 80 rounds of ammo per infantryman PER WEEK. RVNAF sorties were restricted to the point they were used up within the first few days of each month. By May 1975 they would have been OUT of jet fuel.
In August 1974 Congress cut financial aid to GVN by 30%. Coupled with the ongoing oil crisis, although GVN had a numerical advantage in both troops and equipment, much of the equipment was unusable because GVN could not afford the fuel. Fuel prices increased by more than double. (Gas, for example, went from 13 cents a gallon to 40 cents a gallon.) Ammunition prices increased by 24%. Similar price increases were experienced across the board, taxing an already tight budget past the breaking point.
This also impacted fitness and morale. Troops were rationed to meat once a month. Pay was cut severely.
Meanwhile the GVN had to cope with constant harassing attacks from the NVA that damaged infrastructure, sapped their financial strength and kept them from focusing on improving conditions for their citizens.
The North suffered from none of these problems. They had free access to supply lines and logistical routes, did not have to contend with the constant destruction of their infrastructure and enjoyed an unimpeded resupply when needed.
I don't think what you contend holds up to scrutiny at all.
As for questions of US policy, there's not enough hours in the day to list all the mistakes that were made, from the Presidents on down.
Paul,
I’m familiar with most of the details that you’ve provided, but only two of
them seem to address the point that I was making—that the U.S. did not cut
aid to Vietnam to “barely nothing,” as you asserted in your post.
Can you provide documentation for your assertion the U.S. stopped supplying
ammunition to the RVN in Dec. 1973. Reading the Nunn report of February 12,
1975, which looked at the ammunition/supply problem (among other issues), it
is evident that we were still supplying ammunition, gasoline, and other
military supplies to the RVN. The Nunn report was concerned that supplies
were running low, but did not mention any restrictions on supplying this
kind of aid.
Do you have evidence that contradicts the U.S. government estimate that
shows that the RVN continued to receive three to four times as much in arms
shipments compared to the SRV? Or evidence that shows that Congress did not
appropriate $1.1 billion in overall aid to the RVN for FY1975, amounting to
approximately 33% of the GDP for the RVN (data from the Feb. 1975 Nunn
report)?
That’s the information that I have—do you have something different?
:: Mike
Paul Schmehl pschmehl at tx.rr.com
Sat Mar 29 15:25:56 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we may be talking past each other. For example, you write "The
Nunn report was concerned that supplies were running low, but did not
mention any restrictions on supplying this kind of aid."
The Nunn report cites (p.8) an ammo expenditure of "18,600 short tons
monthly" and a "12,000 short ton resupply" rate. That's a 35% shortfall.
It would obviously lead to supply exhaustion in a few months depending on
existing inventory and pace of operations. You apparently don't see that
as a restriction on supplying aid. I do.
With regard to Soviet and Chinese supply to the north, as the Nunn report
points out the numbers come from DISA and should be viewed with some
skepticism. They admit that intelligence is not good and that they don't
know the actual expenditure rates and conversion rates. However, the
report states that military supply rates "have not increased substantially"
and that economic aid has "increased substantially". In fact it was
doubled in 1974 from the previous year (to $1 billion). (p.9) I'm not sure
where the idea that Sino-Soviet aid was substantially reduced comes from.
Turley's numbers may be based on Congressman Aspin's Congressional Record
comments in June of '74. Aspin's numbers are wildly different than the
Nunn report. For example, he lists Sino-Soviet military aid in 1973 at
$290 million and US military aid at $2.271 billion.
In FY 1973 US aid (both military and economic) was $2.77 billion. In FY
1975 it was $1.15 billion, a 61% reduction from 1973. $700 million of that
was military aid.
Public Law 93-52, passed 7/1/73, prohibited obligation or expenditure of
any funds in this or any previous law on or after August 15, 1973 to
directly or indirectly finance “combat in or over or from off the shores
of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.” This prohibited US
support of RVN operations.
Public Law 93-238, passed 1/2/74, "Provides that none of the funds
contained in this Act shall be used to furnish petroleum fuels produced in
the continental United States in Southeast Asia for use by non-United
States nationals."
Given all of this (61% reduction in total aid, 35% shortfall in ammo
resupply and cessation of the provision of all petroleum fuels to Vietnam),
I think it's hard to support a contention that the US did not abandon South
Vietnam. Perhaps I should have been more accurate by prepending
"sufficient" to ammo, but I was trying to make a point. Shorting GVN by
35% per month drains the supply in 3 months.
--On March 29, 2014 at 1:50:32 AM -0400 Mike High <mike.high at earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Paul,
Paul,
Thanks—your citations give us something concrete to work with. Rereading the
Nunn report, I see what you mean about the fuzziness of the amount of
economic aid the DRV was receiving. But, Nunn’s proposal allowed a 2-year
transition period under the implicit assumption that the aid to the RVN
would have to be reduced downward to match that received by the DRV. (It was
contingent on better number-crunching, as the report noted that the first
full accounting of U.S. expenditures was still being prepared.)
I have no quarrel with your citations demonstrating the restrictions on U.S.
military activity (particularly 93-52, which I believe applied only to U.S.
military forces), or your documentation that the U.S. was reducing aid to
the RVN after the Paris Peace Accords. These are well-established facts,
and there’s no doubt that the RVN had great difficulty in adapting to the
new economic reality when aid was reduced and American forces were drawn
down.
As to ammunition shortages, they were definitely a source of concern to Nunn
and his staff, but nothing in the report suggests that the shortages
resulted from cuts in appropriations. Possible problems hinted at in the
report include poor management by the ARVN:
I'm not sure where the idea that Sino-Soviet aid was substantially reduced comes from."
From the declassified Soviet bloc archival documents. Once the Paris Agreements were signed, the proportion of military and economic aid in Soviet supplies was considerably modified in favor of the latter, which greatly irritated Hanoi. I saw various Hungarian documents about such disagreements. Similarly, Chinese aid was sharply reduced from 1972 on (on the latter issue, see Kosal Path's article in "Cold War History," which is based on Vietnamese archival sources).
Best,
Balazs
Szalontai
Are there any similar articles on the Soviet bloc aid to North Vietnam?
--
Paul Schmehl (pschmehl at tx.rr.com)
Independent Researcher
Balazs Szalontai aoverl at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 31 19:34:59 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I have no access to Ilya Gaiduk's books on Soviet involvement in the Vietnam War, but the second one, which covers the post-1964, probably contains such data. Alas, he is no longer alive, and thus I cannot ask him for specific details. My own findings have not been published yet, but if there is more interest in the subject, I will check what I can find in the documents which I brought to Seoul.
Balázs Szalontai
https://kookmin.academia.edu/BalazsSzalontai
[Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
William Turley wturley at siu.edu
Mon Mar 31 20:33:52 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul,
If you will turn to pages 209-212 of my book The Second Indochina War (second edition, 2009), read the pages and check the footnotes, I think you will find a sampling of what you want. I emphatically did not pick sources to support a preconceived conclusion. In any case, the volumes of aid flowing to North and South in the last years of the war were only one of several variables shaping its outcome, and almost certainly not the most important one. Comparative aid levels do not deserve the attention the controversy has given them.
Bill Turley
Dear Mr. Schmehl,
let me ask if, in your opinion, the absence of US political restraints, and the guaranteed and uninterrupted US supply of all the military equipment, ammunition, spare parts, uniforms, fuel, etc. needed for the efficient operation of a South Vietnamese military force of, say, 800.000 regulars would have enabled the ARVN to conduct successive offensive operations north of the 17th parallel if the North Vietnamese regular forces had been backed up by a Chinese invasion force of 530.000 troops, and the Chinese PLAF had conducted frequent air raids against Saigon, Hue, Da Nang, and other South Vietnamese cities.
With many thanks in advance,
Balazs Szalontai
Sat Mar 29 06:55:52 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor, I think we already have an answer for your hypothetical
question. That answer is in the form of the Koreas: one is the world's
12th (or 15th depending on which GDP measure one uses) largest economy with
a female president and the other is a nuclear threat with a comical haircut.
Anh Pham
Washington DC
Paul Schmehl pschmehl at tx.rr.com
Sat Mar 29 16:22:18 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I think Ahn Pham's answer was quite sufficient, I do want to comment
on one part of what you asked. You asked if certain conditions would
enable "the ARVN to conduct successive offensive operations north of the
17th parallel".
I don't think the GVN ever planned or intended to plan offensive operations
north of the DMZ. They would have been perfectly content had the NVA
stopped constantly infiltrating their country and harassing them. In fact,
if the NVA had simply honored the terms of any agreement they ever signed,
South Vietnam would be a prosperous nation today.
Chief among the many mistakes the US made in Vietnam was not sealing off
the Ho Chi Minh trail and not pursuing the enemy into Cambodia and Laos
(until very late in the war.) The idea that you can grant entire areas of
uncontested control to an aggressor and yet defeat them is the most
foolhardy military strategy ever conceived.
Actually, I think the RVN occasionally made noises about taking matters into
their own hands and marching north (B?c Ti?n).
I think this stamp dates from 1972, after Quang Tri was retaken. I don’t
know if it was actually ever issued, though.
I think the U.S. adamantly discouraged this, perhaps because we lacked
confidence in the ARVN, or perhaps for fear of drawing China into the
conflict. China was starting to its withdraw its support from North Vietnam
around 1967-1968, if I remember, but at some point would probably have
reacted to movements so close to its border—imagine, by way of contrast, how
the U.S. would have reacted to a foreign power entering Mexico. Or just look
up Emperor Maximilian I.
Similar objections were raised to some of the ideas that were floated
around, such as the U.S. itself crossing the DMZ and going as far north as
Vinh. You could move the war to different places, you could launch
offensives against the Truong Son trail like Lam Son 719, but the only way
to permanently close each avenue was to guard all of them, and provision the
troops as far away as you marched them. In a contest of wills, it was more
likely to be the Americans who would feel like they were in quicksand.
:: Mike High
????
Khuê van các
Independent Research Facility
Great Falls, VA
USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be frank, I could never take Nguyen Cao Ky seriously.
Several incidents mentioned in his memoirs confirmed my view of Ky, i.e.
his macho act to impress his future wife, ÐTTM, or to impress general Lewis
Walt!
Calvin Thai
When former RVN PM, Thi?u Tu?ng Nguy?n Cao K?, came to Seattle on a book tour for his autobiography Buddha's Child, I asked him whether his Fight to Save Vietnam included plans for a B?c Ti?n during his tenure. Of course, came the somewhat incredulous answer, "many times" he proposed to take the ARVN north of the DMZ(*) if only the US military had his back in the southern half, but the US would have none of it all those times.
C. Giebel
UW-Seattle
PS: Great stamp there, Mike; thank you for that imagery with its invocation of Iwo Jima.
(*) not a political border separating discrete countries, Mr. Schmehl.
Balazs Szalontai aoverl at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Mar 29 21:23:37 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think the GVN ever planned or intended to plan offensive operations
north of the DMZ."
One major reason of why such planning did not reach a practical level was that the U.S. opposed such a concept from 1954 on. The discussions between Nguyen Khanh and various high-ranking U.S. officials (like Maxwell Taylor) in 1964; Khanh's repeated public calls for "Bac Tien;" and the earlier dispatch of RVN commandos to the North (as described by Kenneth Conboy and Dale Andrade) indicate that of the two sides, the ARVN was relatively more ready to resort to some sort of limited offensive operations against the DRV than the U.S. The statement that "They would have been perfectly content had the NVA
stopped constantly infiltrating their country and harassing them" is dodging the question, because once Hanoi did embark on a confrontational strategy vis-a-vis the South, the ARVN had to develop a counter-strategy, defensive or offensive; sitting in the barracks in peace with the world was no longer an option, so to say. You argue that the main obstacle to develop an effective counter-strategy was one of intention, rather than one of capability. That is, the U.S. intentionally imposed certain restraints on its own forces and on the ARVN (e.g., curtailed supplies, failure to cut the HCM Trail, and so on), whereas the North Vietnamese forces acted without such restraints. This is why I asked which outcome you would expect if all such US restraints on ARVN operations had been removed. But we can also reformulate the question. Had the U.S. provided a guaranteed supply of military equipment, ammunition, etc., to an ARVN force of 800.000, and given it a free
hand in developing a counter-strategy, would it have been able to cope with a North Vietnamese invasion if the NVA forces had been backed up by a Chinese expeditionary force of 530.000?
Thanks in advance,
Balazs Szalontai
Dear Balazs,
I don't remember exactly what year I was helping CBS to check
translation of a report about Vietnamese who sued the US for
back pays. They were soldiers who were paid directly by the US
to infiltrate the north in the 1960's. They were captured as soon
as they landed… and the US declared that they died. Sums of
money were paid to the families. After 1975, they were released…
and many immigrated to the US.
The US Congress approved the back pays, which was around 2
millions. The CBS report was aired.
Best,
Nhan
It was Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes.
-- Nhan
Andrew Pearson pearson.drew at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 16:58:47 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, I didn't intend to start a back and forth about Turse. But let me point out a couple of things, and then if you want to continue, write to me off list.
About the title of the book being policy: of course that's not the kind of policy that gets put in official orders. But policy that's understood is no less policy. Turse is correct.
Concerning ARVN supplies: There are two men, both veterans of the war, one a CIA officer, the other a Marine officer, who have written in detail about the issue of US development aid and supplies to ARVN and how they tended to disappear. The more supplies the US brought in, the more there was getting to the other side. The CIA officer is Orrin Deforest. His book: Slow Burn. The other is Colonel Bill Corson: The Betrayal. He had many years of experience in Asia and South Vietnam.
Your reference to Turse, page 118. Here's the full quote from that interview:
"Like I say, you get in the way of an M-14 or M-60 caliber machine gun and there's no telling who's gonna get killed. And you got an angry 18-year-old kid behind the gun and he's just seen his buddy getting killed. And he's not gonna have no remorse for who's on the receiving end of that 60 caliber machine gun."
You're right that the Marine is talking about an M-60 machine gun, (7.62 cal. not 60 caliber) and that's his mistake but he's allowed to talk about it anyway he wants because he survived an operation in which many others in his company were killed. We interviewed him, along with his company commander for the PBS series, Vietnam: A Television History. (1983) I produced and wrote the program in which the Marine enlisted man and his company commander appeared. They're very much for real.
Andrew Pearson, TV news and documentaries during the war
Andrew,
1. As stated previously, my view has changed from Ho being a national hero,
to Ho being a nationalist vs a communist, then to Ho being a very weak
leader vs an opportunist.
It was a 30-plus-year long, painful process for me. However, between facts
and fiction, between truth and lies, I chose the former.
While David Marr's "Vietnam-1945" is great, to have a good assessment
of Ho, I focused in a period of more than 60 years, from the early 1910s to
the 1970s, even after Ho's death. That means outstanding work from William
Duiker, Sophia Quinn-Judge, Stein Tonnesson, Nguyen Lien-Hang, Pierre
Asselin, etc. should not be left out.
2. Also stated previously, I believe war crimes were committed by all sides
in the Vietnam War.
Nick Turse's work, not matter how great it could be, represents only one
quarter or one half of the truth. As a student of the Vietnam War, I
am searching for the other half of the truth.
Unfortunately, work done in the West since the end of the war, almost 40
years ago, has not been able to fill up that gap!
That's why I'd like to know the reason: Due to a lack of interest, due to
too much a challenge to have good materials, etc. ?
Calvin Thai
Dear List,
I only consider crimes committed by all sides, i.e. DRV, NLF, RVN and their
allies, during the period 1960-1975, as war crimes.
Most of the times, when talking about war crimes in the Vietnam War, folks
in the West are quick to use photos of the My-Lai massacre, of Eddie Adams'
Tet incident or of Nick Ut's 1972 incident.
Images of these photos have stayed with generations of students of the
Vietnam War in the US, in France, in Australia, etc.
Who committed those war crimes ? RVN and the US, their allies.
Is that the whole truth ? If not, what is happening to the rest of the
truth ?
By actively using these photos in teaching, in conferences, in books, etc.,
is the West indirectly spreading Hanoi's propaganda, i.e. half of the
truth, to generations of students ?
Since VSG is an academic forum, I look forward to hearing from others on my
questions.
Best regards,
Calvin Thai
PS: While my training is nowhere near what I have been written on VSG, it
is part of my daily work to search for the truth or for facts, no matter
where they are leading to!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Calvin and All,
let me ask if you have found some largely reliable data about the number of persons executed by NLF/PLAF forces in Hue during the Tet Offensive. The Hungarian documents I found provide some interesting insight into the motives of these killings (i.e., the aim to destabilize and paralyze the RVN state apparatus and, if possible, to set up a rival government in Hue), but they do not say how many persons were executed, and initial US press reports may have lumped together the victims of several forms of violence: deliberate NLF/PLAF executions; killings committed by the returning RVN security forces; and deaths resulting from the fierce battle over the city.
All the best,
Balazs
Balázs Szalontai
Is the official report of the GVN acceptable?
1214 civilian deaths attributable to battle casualties (from both sides).
2788 civilian deaths attributable to NVA assassinations. Between 500 and
1000 military assassinations.
Approximately 3000 bodies were found in 29 different locations over a two
year period after the NVA was driven out of the city. Most were bound at
the wrists and elbows and either shot or bludgeoned to death. Some where
tied together and buried alive.
1750 victims were found in 17 locations and 127 separate graves in the
first six months after the NVA were driven out. The rest were found, some
by pure happenstance, over the following two year period after the battle.
In March and April of 69, and additional 809 victims were found in 47 mass
graves within six miles of Hue.
In September of 69, acting on information from VC defectors, an additional
500 sets of skeletal remains were found approximately 14 kilometers from
Hue. They were Catholics and Buddhists rounded up from two adjacent
communities.
In November of 69, more mass graves were found, containing a total of 230
victims.
A communist report listed 2826 names of people that were assassinated
"administrative personnel, nationalist party political members, 'tyrants'
and policement".
5800 civilians were reported as missing after the NVA was driven out, and,
as you can see by totaling the above, 3289 bodies were recovered and
confirmed to have been executed. The fates of the 2500+ others is not
known, but it's logical to assume that their graves were never found.
Study of the Hue Massacre, March 1968, Folder 14, Box 13, Douglas Pike
Collection: Unit 05 - National Liberation Front, The Vietnam Center and
Archive, Texas Tech University. Accessed 29 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/items.php?item=2311314001>.
Paul Schmehl (pschmehl at tx.rr.com)
Independent Researcher
Dear Balazs et al.
Thanks for the information.
I hope someday soon VSG member(s) can have access to VCP archives to learn
more about the Hu? massacre.
I was told they did not allow general Tr?n Van Qu?ng, aka B?y Ti?n, the
commander of Hu?-Th?a Thiên military region in 1968, to make public his
memoirs.
Calvin Thai
Paul Schmehl pschmehl at tx.rr.com
Sat Mar 29 12:15:21 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] : Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin, neither Eddie Adam's famous photo nor Nick Ut's recorded war
crimes. In the former case, the VC executed had just been caught after
assassinating entire families (men, women and children) of Saigon police
officers. You could argue that he should have had a trial, but the end
result would have been exactly the same. Under the Geneva Convention,
captured military personnel are to be accorded all the rights of the
Convention. Those rules do not apply, however, to persons who do not fight
under an identifiable flag or wear uniforms that distinguish them from
civilians.
That is why the Al Qaeda fighters captured and taken to Guantanamo were
called illegal combatants not prisoners of war. Although they have
received all the rights of prisoners of war, there is no requirement under
the Convention to do so. This is an area of the law where many are
confused and many others disagree, but until the Convention is changed to
address the existence of non-state actors, the present rules still apply.
In the latter case, the RVNAF committed what is euphemistically called "a
friendly fire incident". These happen all the time in war and are not war
crimes. My cousin, Donald, was killed by "friendly fire". It didn't make
him any less dead, but it wasn't a war crime.
Many of the war crimes of the NVA are known, but I don't think anyone has
ever written a comprehensive study to document them. It would be a good
Ph.D thesis, but there seems to be little interest in doing it.
To specifically answer your question, "By actively using these photos in
teaching, in conferences, in books, etc., is the West indirectly spreading
Hanoi's propaganda, i.e. half of the truth, to generations of students ?"
The answer is, obviously, yes, of course.
Presenting history without the surrounding context necessarily communicates
less than the full story. In some cases it presents a completely false
story.
Dear Paul et al,
Thanks for the clarification on war crimes and other information.
I first saw those photos together at "Phòng Tri?n lãm T?i ác M?-Ng?y" at a
rather young age.
Even though I did my best to "deprogram" myself in the past 30-plus years,
that is not to say I am completely free of Hanoi propaganda! :-)
Calvin Thai
Fair enough, Larry, to criticise the flawed potted version of history on
the Vietnam Commemoration site but - speaking strictly historically here -
you should get your own facts straight too.
Just as a couple examples, you state that Americans "fought alongside (and
admired) Viet Minh" troops against the Japanese in 1945. Well, the reason
for the OSS mission was to rescue downed pilots bosmbing Haiphong and other
targets after the March '45 coup against the French and the Viet Minh were
the only viable group out there. And while they did provide some weapons
and training, it is not rpt not correct to say they fought alongside them.
You then state that Ho Chi Minh made "several" appeals to Truman. As far
as I know, there was only one such letter, or perhaps two, but not several
and there's even some question if it or they were ever received in
Washington.
I would also question your assertion that the Americans were there to help
the French re-colonise Vietnam. From the start, it was about "holding the
line against communism" -- and there was little doubt about HCM's
credentials as a founding member of the French Communist Party, operative
for the Comintern and founder of the Indochina Communist Party -- given
what had happened in eastern Europe after WW2 and fears about the stability
of France and Italy. From the start, and full of contradictions of
course, the Americans were pushing for independence but under a
non-communist banner and without which pressure the French would never have
moved to the Bao Dai, or State of Vietnam (later the ROV, or South
Vietnam).
(Another point, the Viet Minh were the only "viable" force because the
French had locked up or sent into exile everyone else and only its
communist-style cell structure and its strong ideological, as in
Marxist-Leninist anti-Imperialism, roots. Also, don't forget what happened
to the non-Communist nationalists who were in HCM's first post-war
government while HCM was off in France in 1946 negotiating that ill-fated
"modus vivendi" which actually allowed French troops to return to the North
in exchange for the departure of the KMT.)
Again, the omissions in the Commemoration stuff is woefully superficial and
twisted, but let's try to stick to the historical record.
Vsg'ers might be interested in following this same discussion on the Google
Group of former Vietnam War correspondents that I manage here
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/vietnam-old-hacks and which Chuck
Searcy forwarded along to you. Some fascinating contributions from those
who covered the war and probably one of best-ever discussions. You will
also note where I stand on this issue.
With best regards,
Carl Robinson
USOM/USAID 1964-68; AP/Saigon '68-75
Convenor; https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/vietnam-old-hacks.
Lawrence Johnson larry.johnson075 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 17 22:07:11 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl: Thank you for the corrections. This is why historians should be
writing the history and not propagandist, apologists... or filmmakers! We
tend to exaggerate for dramatic effect.
Regarding Ho Chi Minh's the letters to Truman, is there no record of
receipt?
Thanks,
Larry
Andrew Pearson whaleback at gwi.net
Tue Mar 18 07:09:57 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry, Carl wouldn't claim to be a scholar of Vietnamese history. He and I are journalists, pragmatic observers, who lived and worked there for some years. Carl was with AP in Saigon, and the U.S. Agency for International Development in the Delta, before that. I did news and documentaries there, first for NBC and then ABC News. We've seen a lot and read a lot, but historians, no.
Perhaps we say too much on this academic list and should be more reserved. Especially me. Judith Henchy can tell us how she feels. Carl would admit that he is also no authority about what Ho sent to American presidents or the State Department, but perhaps he's gone to bed early on the other side of the world. I think he's in Hong Kong right now. But there is someone on this list who does know a great deal about Ho.
Her book is here: http://www.amazon.com/Ho-Chi-Minh-Missing-Years/dp/0520235339
It's also her PhD thesis modified some, for publication. Sophia Quinn-Judge reads and speaks Russian and Vietnamese and is the Associate Director of the Center for Vietnamese Philosophy, Culture and Society at Temple University. We defer to you, Sophia. Do you have time to write briefly about Ho's communications to American presidents and the State Department, or other American officials? I've seen a reference recently, but I don't remember where, that he had written to FDR asking the US to administer Vietnam after World War II. (Maybe it was in Embers of War, Fredrick Longevall, Cornell University historian.) Ho preferred the US style, as in the Philippines, where there was already a Commonwealth status, with independence promised for '45. The war intervened and Philippine independence was given in '46. I think it's correct that Roosevelt had no intention of letting the French re-colonize Indochina. Corrections, please? These are questions that need to be established for the Commemoration timeline.
Would it make sense for a few Vietnam scholars to suggest to the officer running it, Lt. General Claude Kicklighter, that he get advice from people who actually know what happened in the war so that the timeline and other editorial content are more accurate? The Commemoration is going to be producing academic material for use in schools, nationally. Is that something that our Defense Department should even be doing, or is even permitted to do in this democracy? General Kicklighter served two tours in South Vietnam as a logistics officer. A military friend of mine who knows him says he's a "great guy." This is a very important but delicate issue, this history. What to do?
Andrew Pearson, TV news and documentaries for NBC, ABC, five years in-country over the decade '63 through '72.
On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:07 AM, Lawrence Johnson <larry.johnson075 at gmail.com> wrote:
Carl: Thank you for the corrections. This is why historians should be writing the history and not propagandist, apologists... or filmmakers! We tend to exaggerate for dramatic effect.
Regarding Ho Chi Minh's the letters to Truman, is there no record of receipt?
Thanks,
Larry
Andrew:
Yes, however Carl is a well-informed journalist! My concern is that the
DOD displays the same willful lack of understanding in its timeline that
led us into the war in the first place. And that every history of the war
that I have read feels like a litany of missed opportunities to avoid war.
And Mark, thanks for the Veterans for Peach website referral. Glad they're
keeping the light burning.
Thanks all,
Larry Johnson
www.ghostmoneythefilm.com
I’ll second what Tom Miller has said—if you take a look at the website, they
seem to be trying to stick to a “Dragnet” style of description—most of the
facts are correct, but the selection of facts is as one-sided as what you
will see in the War Museum in Hanoi.
It is a bare-bones U.S. military timeline, with absolutely no context. For
instance, if you go to the landing of U.S. ground units in Vietnam in 1965,
it says nothing about why/how this move was made. Thus, it avoids making
the claim that the RVN asked for the U.S. troops, and thus manages to dodge
one of the more pertinent questions about the nature of American
intervention.
Other noteworthy samples are the entries regarding Diem’s election, his
overthrow, and the Tonkin Gulf incident.
> http://www.vietnamwar50th.com/timeline/#/page/1/details/13
> http://www.vietnamwar50th.com/timeline/#/page/3/details/41
> http://www.vietnamwar50th.com/timeline/#/page/4/details/49
Regarding Diem, the entry makes it clear that the election results were
fraudulent, and for the coup, it simply says “Generals from the Army of the
Republic of Vietnam topple the government and assassinate President Ngo Dinh
Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu.” No mention of Buddhist protests,
American communications with the coup plotters, etc., because, presumably,
that is outside the scope of military history. (Even though the military
history does not happen without those events.)
In the case of the Tonkin Gulf, the entry is forthright about the role of
the USS Maddox in support of a South Vietnamese “coastal operation,” though
it makes no mention of the covert attacks that were taking place above the
DMZ at the same time. That’s another kind of context that is missing from
this timeline, which presents a litany of attacks on U.S. military
facilities in the south without similarly recording U.S. activities to
eliminate opposition to the Diem government and destabilize the DRV.
As history, the project is hopelessly compromised by its mission to
commemorate the war in generally positive terms. See the objectives:
http://www.vietnamwar50th.com/assets/1/7/Vietnam_ObjectivesPoster_Final1.JPG
I think that historians at our War Colleges would find this kind of
presentation completely inadequate and dangerously misleading. I don’t see
how it could be coherently used as a teaching tool at any level of
education.
:: Mike High
????
Khuê van các
Independent Research Facility
Great Falls, VA
USA
Mark Ashwill markashwill at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 18 07:28:32 PDT 2014
Previous message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Next message: [Vsg] Vietnam War Commemoration
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans for Peace Chapter 099 (Western North Carolina) has created a site entitled FULL DISCLOSURE: TOWARD AN HONEST COMMEMORATION OF THE AMERICAN WAR IN VIETNAM (http://www.vietnamfulldisclosure.org/). It describes itself as "a Veterans For Peace effort to speak truth to power and keep alive the antiwar perspective on the American war in Viet Nam -- which is now approaching a series of 50th anniversary events. The Full Disclosure Campaign represents a clear alternative to the Department of Defense's current efforts to sanitize and mythologize the Viet Nam war and to thereby legitimize further unnecessary and destructive wars."
The homepage includes an Open Letter to the American People, along w/ links to upcoming events, campaign member bios, commemorating the American War in Viet Nam (by Howard Machtinger), "our campaign proposal", resources for educators, war anniversaries (worth remembering), and related links.
MAA
Hanoi
$65 million seems like way too much money, but perhaps they could put some
of it to good use, along the lines of what the Vietnam Center of Texas Tech
has done. For example they could sponsor conferences and make documents
about the war more widely available online, etc. I notice at their website
they include the first two chapters of The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition,
which does not whitewash our efforts there, along with various documents.
My impression is that one of the main purposes is to honor American and RVN
soldiers who fought there, which seems reasonable, given the context.
Steve Denney
library assistant
UC Berkeley