Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:38 AM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Hi anh Calvin (my apology for using Thai),

At a later date then.

Thanks.
Nhan
Temple University

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:07 PM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Anh Thái,

In essence, I learned a lot about other viewpoints in history.  While you are zooming on Lê Duẩn, whose crime seemed to be
that he insisted on the DRV and PRG were two but of one side at the Paris Peace Agreement.  Come to think of it, if he pulled
that to work at the Paris negotiation, he indeed should be praised.  And no one could stop him.  He stopped Kissinger and the
mighty US who violated the 1954 Geneva Agreement and propped up a Ngo Dinh Diem (who was then in New York with Father
Tran Van Kiem) and the RVN out of thin air.  Bought the French Vietnamese troops for Diem (my father was asked to join, he
refused) and paid for the RVN from the start.  I grew up listening to the news in the RVN about the killing of VC communists in
thousands per week around the end of the 1960's.  The Vietnamese on TV then were like the Palestinians today in Gaza.  They
taught us well how to hate other Vietnamese whom they call communists. That's why I focus on the US and Kissinger. 

I agree we do not have the same criteria, you on Le Duan (who went on to crash the Vietnamese economy) and I Kissinger (who
went on to create havoc and crimes against other innocent peoples in the world).  I agree that we should wrap up the exchange.

Best,
Nhan
Temple University.

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:21 AM
To: Nguyen Luong Hai Khoi <haikhoisp@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@uw.edu; Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Khôi,

I beg to differ with Prof. Nguyen Manh Hung's view of Kissinger. I would like to address one of his points: "Fourth, Kissinger's goal is to safely withdraw troops and maintain America's credibility in the power competition between major powers. People criticize Kissinger for lying and cheating when carrying out secret diplomacy. But without secret negotiations to avoid immediate public reaction and opposition, how could China be "opened" with the Shanghai Joint Communiqué in 1972?"
 
One American publicly said in 1969, "A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends."

Another American recently wrote, "To say that Henry Kissinger was a fraud would be too charitable. Rather, he betrayed not only the Americans and South Vietnamese who had fought and died in the Vietnam War but also the people of Vietnam, about 2 million of whom fled before the victors from the North could round up all those whom it regarded as “traitors” and kill or imprison them. As it was, the North Vietnamese sent several hundred thousand to the infamous “reeducation camps,” from which many never returned." ("In Vietnam, Henry Kissinger was worse than a fraud", Donald Kirk, 2023).

In Kissinger's own words: According to John Erlichman, he posed a question to Kissinger on January 23, 1973, “How long do you figure the South Vietnamese can survive under this agreement?" and Kissinger answered, "I think that if they're lucky they can hold out for a year and a half". "When Kissinger's assistant John Negroponte opined that the agreement was not in the best interests of South Vietnam, Kissinger asked him, "Do you want us to stay there forever?"" ("Witness to Power: The Nixon Years", John Erlichman, 1982. Erlichman was the White House Counsel and Nixon's Assistant; "No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam", Larry Berman, 2001).

How could anyone maintain America's credibility by coming up with the Paris Peace Agreement? Who was the American with the 1969 statement cited above? He happened to be the President of the United States of America, Kissinger's boss.

Kissinger knew very well that signing the Paris Peace Agreement meant signing the death warrant of the RVN, an ally who fought side-by-side with American soldiers in more than 10 years, with 200,000 lives of its own lost. However, he proceeded regardless. Many Americans have pointed out Kissinger's betrayal of trust of a long-time US ally. The betrayal has nothing to do with secret negotiations or whatever Prof. Hung related to in his article.

On a side note: I first got myself familiar with Artificial Intelligence 30-plus years ago. AI has gone a long way ever since. Some members may be interested in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iqn1HhFJ6c

I share Ilya Sutskever's view. His concerns highly likely would not materialize in the next 30-40 years, but uncertainty remains in the following decades.

Best,

Calvin Thai

Independent

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 9:32 AM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear anh Nhàn,

Based on your list of Vietnamese who fought for peace in the 1960s and 1970s, without any disrespect for them, I would say even 100 times or 1000 times of the number of these peace-loving people could not stop one person: Le Duan!

Since you and I have not used the same criteria in the discussion about the Paris Peace Agreement, it would be better to wrap up the exchange between us two.

Cheers,

Calvin Thai

Independent

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:14 AM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Anh Thái,

I would like to add my $0.02 = $0.04 to your comments on the Paris Peace Agreement.

My teacher was Reverend Thich Nhat Hanh, one of my best friends were Mme Ngo Ba Thanh, anh Huynh Tan Mam, anh Daavid Truong Dinh Hung (son of Truong Dinh Dzu)...
and many others who were prominently calling for peace before the start of the Peace negeotiation in Paris...  They were independent from the NLF/PRG.  They did have
their peace proposals (I remember Thich Nhat Hanh came and gave a talk about his proposal in San Jose State, so was Truong Dinh Dzu,...)... They did lend their voices in
the peace process.  I considered them as a very important voice for peace and should be mentioned and acknowledged as a political force to balance out two rival factions
in the south.  The official naming the force in the Paris Peace Agreement was a plus (bypassing the objections from Nguyen Van Thieu).  Although the Agreement did not
work out, the recognition of their existence was important as their role.

The military and economic aids to south Vietnam was huge at the beginning of the Paris negotiation.  I believe that it was in the mind of the negotiators from the PRG.
The aim of the Agreement was to find a "peace with honor" for the US with its presence in south Vietnam intact (while the US air forces, the US armed forces and the US
allied armed forces were to be pulled out).  This was logical in the eye of the DRV negotiators since later Vietnam acknowledged what the Shanghai Communique
between the US and China, brokered by Kissinger, was to keep Vietnam division in place... the PRG would want to have the US presence to support the RVN.  

Unfortunately, if you read again the resignation speech by Nguyen Van Thieu around the end of April 1975, by then, 2 years after the Paris Peace Agreement, I found
that he, a soldier all his life, had no heart for a Paris Agreement political solution with the deep reduction of US military aids.  He, like many Vietnamese now in the US,
considered Kissinger betraying the RVN.

I did remember the US TVs compared the military aids to the DRV and the US military aids to the RVN... which ultimately proved that Kissinger attempt to choke the DRV by
going with the Soviet Union and China did not work, and to use China to influence the DRV position did not work.

My subtle point is Kissinger did have a big influence in the US foreign policy then, but by today, it may prove unhelpful (if not shortsighted) while he did cause a lot of unnecessary
sufferings while in power.

Thanks,
Nhan Ngo
Temple University

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 7:15 AM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Thanks for the elaboration, anh Nhàn. While the South China Sea dispute topic is interesting, it is outside of this discussion. We can come back to it at a later time.

Calvin Thai

Independent

PS: BTW, my name is Calvin (or Cầu), not Thái. :-)

From: Thi Bay Miradoli <thibay.miradoli@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 2:51 PM
To: Nguyen Luong Hai Khoi <haikhoisp@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@uw.edu; Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Thank you Khoi for your thoughtful response.

I wish to live in a world where there is no more immediate priority, no highest interest (political, moral or otherwise), than to spare human lives. 

I miss Chi Cam every day :)

Warmly

Thi Bay

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 7:06 AM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear anh Nhàn,

The following is my $.02 about your statement on the Third Force winning "a voice in the peace process" and on "the US huge military and economic aids" for the RVN in its final years.

1. On the Third Force:
Its official name is the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet Nam (Hiệp định về chấm dứt chiến tranh, lập lại hòa bình ở Việt Nam) but the 1973 peace treaty failed to deliver its primary goal, "Restoring Peace in Viet Nam".

In their 1969 speeches, Richard Nixon and William Rogers discussed the US proposals to end the Vietnam War, starting with the withdrawal of American armed forces and North Vietnamese armed forces from the South simultaneously, following with the end to all military activity in the demilitarized zone and the release of prisoners. ("Viet-Nam in Perspective; An Address by William P. Rogers", 4/21/69; Nixon's "Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam", 11/03/69).

In secret talks with Kissinger from 1970 to 1973, as instructed by Le Duan, Le Duc Tho steadfastly stuck to two demands: 1. to withdraw American armed forces from the South, 2. to keep North Vietnamese armed forces in the South. The Agreement led to the departure of all American armed forces from South Vietnam and the leopard-spot arrangement of Le Duan's 200,000 troops in South Vietnam, in the exact situation as Le Duc Tho insisted.

The Third Force might believe what they did was for a lasting peace. In reality, they helped Le Duan achieve his goal of a total victory in the Vietnam War.

2. On "the US huge military and economic aids" for the RVN in its final years:
From the Western sources- The US Congress drastically cut military aid to South Vietnam more than 50% in 1974 and cut another 40% in 1975. In the meantime, military aid from the Soviet Union and China to the DRV increased 20% in 1974. For 1975, General Viktor Kulikov, Chief of General Staff of the Soviet Armed Forces, attended the Politburo's meetings in late December of 1974. Within weeks after the meetings, seaborne shipments of Soviet war materiel to the DRV increased fourfold in volume as Moscow gave full aid and comfort to Hanoi in its final offensive. ("Communist Military and Economic Aid to North Vietnam", CIA declassified document, 2005).

From Hanoi's sources- "Hai năm 1973-1974, miền Bắc tiếp tục động viên 25 vạn thanh niên vào lực lượng vũ trang, bổ sung cho chiến trường 15 vạn quân; chuyển hàng vạn thương binh, bệnh binh từ các chiến trường về điều trị và giải quyết nhanh chính sách. Đến cuối năm 1974, trên 33 vạn tấn vật chất các loại đã được giao cho các chiến trường. Chỉ trong 4 tháng (từ tháng 1 đến tháng 4-1975), miền Bắc đã bổ sung vào chiến trường trên 110.000 cán bộ, chiến sĩ; 230.000 tấn vật chất các loại." ("Vai trò của miền Bắc trong kháng chiến chống Mỹ", 2005).

Facts, not old stories, would help us understand the Vietnam War better.

Best,

Calvin Thai

Independent

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Pierre Asselin <passelin@sdsu.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Pierre,

With due respect, can you sum up and discuss this point: there are significant change in the agreement that called for 12 day B52 carpet bombing
which forced the DRV abandoned one, just one, of their significant claim in the 1973 Paris Peace Agreement?

Enlighten me.

Thanks,
Nhan Ngo
Temple University

From: Pierre Asselin <passelin@sdsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:25 AM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Nhan:

I did discuss it, in a 250-page book. 

Pierre

Pierre Asselin

Professor of History - Dwight E. Stanford Chair in US Foreign Relations

San Diego State University

History Department

5500 Campanile Dr.

San Diego, CA 92182-6050

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:21 AM
To: Pierre Asselin <passelin@sdsu.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Pierre,

I looked it up here
https://vietnamtheartofwar.com/1973/01/27/27-january-1973-paris-peace-accords-signed/
which states "Kissinger and Thọ had met on 23 January 1973 and signed off on a treaty that was basically
identical to a draft reached three months earlier" which continues to say "in which Thọ had significantly
modified his bargaining line after feeling the pressure of isolation from President Nixon’s Détente policy
being relatively successful in developing relations with the Soviet Union and China."

I did reviewed the two documents in January 1973 and saw no significant difference between the two wrt
the first article and the signatories, the withdrawal of the US and allied troops, the cessation of the air war,
the establishment of a three party government of south Vietnam... The basic argument of the DRV on its
diplomatic success.

You have not shown what was "untrue" "erroneous" and "misguided" but went on to posit "open mind"
and "discussing". So discuss!

Cheers,
Nhan
Temple University.

From: Pierre Asselin <passelin@sdsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear All:

I'm sorry, but the statement that "the draft and the signed Paris Peace Agreement in January 28, 1973 are the same," that there was "[n]o change from the time Kissinger announced 'peace is at hand' in October 26, 1972 and released the draft agreement," is categorically untrue.

This conversation is symptomatic of much that is wrong with Vietnam War studies in this country.  Instead of presenting views informed by actual scholarship (not the bullshit kind, but the real one), people prefer recycling the same old (erroneous and misguided) tropes about the war.  No wonder our field is so damn stale, and books that present nothing new about the war but repeat those same archaic tropes go on to become bestsellers and win major awards.  

Is it really so hard to keep an open mind when studying and discussing this stuff?   

Pierre

Pierre Asselin

Professor of History - Dwight E. Stanford Chair in US Foreign Relations

San Diego State University

History Department

5500 Campanile Dr.

San Diego, CA 92182-6050

From: George Black <ghsblack@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:53 AM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Anh Nguyễn Lương Hải Khôi, 

On your comment about Kissinger telling the truth as a scholar but lying when he became a politician - in researching my recent book, I came across a reminiscence by Kenneth Waltz, a professor at Swarthmore, a distinguished scholar of international relations and an outspoken critic of the American War in Vietnam, of a conversation he had with Kissinger. This was in 1968, while Kissinger was still a professor at Harvard and before he became National Security Advisor. 

Waltz recalled that, "We agreed completely: hopeless, pointless, no American interest at stake." The United States' only vital interest in Vietnam, Kissinger said, was to maintain its "credibility." He told Waltz, "If we get out of Vietnam, just withdraw, the McCarthy period in politics will pale into insignificance. American society will just blow up. There will be such recriminations, because we will be seen as having sold out." 

I'll leave it to the professional academics and epistemologists to debate whether that is a "scholar" speaking truth (not publicly, of course, but in a private conversation), or a man consistently displaying the kind of cynical and duplicitous "realism" that got him appointed by Nixon a few months later - with such catastrophic consequences for Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, Chile, Indonesia and others during his eight years as national security advisor and secretary of state. 

Best,

George Black

https://george-black.net

646-361-3931

@georgehsblack

The Long Reckoning: A Story of War, Peace, and Redemption in Vietnam 

(Knopf, March 2023) - a New York Times Book Review Editors' Choice

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 7:58 AM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Anh Nguyễn Lương Hải Khôi,

I do not have the same relationship to Chị Thi Bay Miradoli or Chị Phan Cầm.  Can I offer a simple fact:
when I elect a politician, I expect his/her political life "with reality" somehow reconcile with his/her/my humanity "spiritual ideals"
otherwise a computer deals with consistency of facts better than any human.

Case in point, the draft and the signed Paris Peace Agreement in January 28, 1973 are the same.  No change from the time
Kissinger announced "peace is at hand" in October 26, 1972 and released the draft agreement, and the official one signed
3 months later, yet President Nixon and Kissinger ordered the 12-day B-52 carpet bombing of the DRV, esp. Hanoi, to show strength,
killing a lot of civilians unnecessarily and uncalled for.  They both argued the treaty was already "peace with honor."

Best,
Ngo Thanh Nhan
Temple University

From: Nguyen Luong Hai Khoi <haikhoisp@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2023 7:07 PM
To: Thi Bay Miradoli <thibay.miradoli@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@uw.edu; Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Chị Bảy, long time no see.
(Do you remember Chị Phan Cầm, Managing Editor at Tuổi trẻ Chủ Nhật in HCMC? She is my lovely sister. :))

You are right. Your view is very beautiful. I agree with you.

Scholars look at Kissinger and political life from an ethical perspective. Looking at things through philosophical eyes is our mission.

But... (me cry :))

As Aristotle said, politicians can not be philosophers, and vice versa, because politicians live with reality, philosophers live with spiritual ideals, so their values are contradictory. For philosophers, borders are just human illusions. We live in a human realm that transcends all borders. But politicians work with invisible and visible borders.

When Kissinger was a scholar, he told the truth, when he became a politician, he lied often. Politicians must work with available tools, understand all the borders, look at the ultimate goal and the whole picture, so sometimes have to sacrifice some factors. Regarding the ongoing "mass killing" in Gaza, Biden said a "two-state solution" in Gaza is the only way to ensure the long-term security of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people, but (me cry :)) the US and Israel are locked in many strategic areas, and if the US blows up the relationship with Israel, Americans may suffer quickly. Similarly, Vietnam wants Ukraine's sovereignty to be respected, but Hanoi cannot criticize Russia. Hanoi also supports the Palestinians but does not criticize Israel. That's how political systems around the world work while they are locked together in their limited borders.

Prof. Nguyen Manh Hung does not defend Kissinger. He just tried to talk about Kissinger from a politician's perspective. (Professor Hung used to be Deputy Minister of Planning of South Vietnam, and a key member of the Progressive National Movement, a main opposition party at that time in Saigon. After April 30, 1975, he lost everything.)

As a “researcher”, I try to talk about historical figures with a calm tone and think about them without emotion, but, as a Vietnamese, every time I see a photo of Kissinger and Mao Zedong smiling at each other, I remember the images of B-52 bombing on North Vietnam, my homeland, the bombing on Cambodia, and the images of Boat People of the South Vietnam. In the final stages of the Vietnam War, both sides of the Vietnamese were Kissinger's victims. Kissinger is also an advocate for the “right” to bomb Napalm and bomb secretly. The US today is trying to reconcile with Vietnam and Cambodia by cleaning up unexploded ordnance left over from the war. That's how the horror of Kissinger's "explosive legacy" in Southeast Asia has been going on. (Cry).

Prof. Hung was from South Vietnam, me from the North, but both of us share the same view about Kissinger: If we were in Kissinger's position at that historical moment, we would also betray South Vietnam and join hands with China. (Cry again :). For Vietnamese today, what needs to be done is not to condemn Kissinger but to understand the choices of politicians leading great powers. (me cry more :) 

If I don't want to get involved in something like what Kissinger did, the only way is not to do politics. If I were a politician or worked in a political environment, I would have to figure out all the borders, and if I faced a situation where I had to lie, my choice would be to stay silent, or to say polite diplomatic words rather than lie.

Many American strategists today are confused by the choices of Vietnam and some Southeast Asian countries between the US - China competition, because they have focused on the politics of great powers and not paid enough attention to the politics of small/medium countries. I am studying the survival strategies of small countries during the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece, and between Jin and Chu in ancient China. Small countries in both the ancient West and East applied about 7 different survival strategies to survive the conflict of the 2 great powers. Surprisingly, all these 7 survival strategies are still applied by small countries today. But in the ancient worlds, there was no strategy that helped small countries survive. Just like in game theory, 2 great powers in the ancient worlds also implemented countermeasures to disrupt the survival strategies of small countries. (Me cry more and more :)

That is the context of Professor Nguyen Manh Hung's reflections on Kissinger.

Cheers

em Khoi
P/S: Sorry all friends here for a long email. Free Sunday night makes me talk too much.😭😭😭 

Nguyen Luong Hai Khoi, US-Vietnam Research Center, University of Oregon 

Managing Editor, US-Vietnam Review 

VN: https://usvietnam.uoregon.edu/ EN: https://usvietnam.uoregon.edu/en/

From: Thi Bay Miradoli <thibay.miradoli@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 7:32 AM
To: Nguyen Luong Hai Khoi <haikhoisp@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@uw.edu; Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Hello,

About: " First, Kissinger makes policies to serve America's interests, in his opinion, not to serve the Republic of Vietnam or the Democratic Republic of Vietnam or to please the anti-war faction." 

But isn't the anti-war faction (or young Americans who did not want to go to war, or the families who lost young ones in the war) part of "America's interests"?  In a country with such a plurality of views and experiences as the United States, at a time when so many did not want this war, one that brought many Americans home in body bags while damaging others for a lifetime (not to mention the intergenerational impact of war on the children of parents who transferred AO exposure onto their children or children whose parents developed deep depression, drug abuse or committed suicide as a result of their experience in Vietnam). But of course there are still Americans who believe that refusing to call for a cease fire that would stop the massacre of Palestinian children, women and men. But does it? and did it?

And yes the October 7 attacks were horrific and I strongly condemn them, but collective punishment - a war crime (among many others being committed)- will not heal any of its victims and a few days of humanitarian pause  allowed so much more  (such as hostages release)  than a genocide ever will.  

WWII served humanity by eradicating nazism, but has any war since then served anyone, especially "American's interests"? What are American interests? And how far are we willing to compromise our humanity to achieve them? I know this might sound wildly off topic or as not belonging on this listserv, but since invariably (and deeply regrettably) so much that is researched and discussed about the beautiful country of Vietnam is war, I want to press us to keep on questioning which American interests were  worth the massacre of 2,000,000 civilians, because maybe that will give us some perspective on the carnage with which we, as Americans, are complicit in the State of Palestine as I type. 

Why else study war if not to prevent its horrors for recurring? Otherwise, it would be a morbid fascination with the worst part of us, obsession with winners and losers, the most reductive binary of the entire human existence.  Kissinger was a war criminal by definition, his motivations do not make his crimes any less reprehensible, his stated purpose of serving the American interests does not exonerate him from inexcusable atrocities,  even if that were true, and his crimes extend well beyond Vietnam, or SE Asia for that matter. 

Apologies for the tangent and thank you Khoi for sharing your professor's perspective and providing an opportunity for reflection.

Thi Bay Miradoli

Unaffiliated

From: Nguyen Luong Hai Khoi <haikhoisp@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 9:04 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear All,

I think you may be interested in this point of view about Henry Kissinger from Prof. Nguyen Manh Hung at George Mason University. 

"Henry Kissinger: di sản chính trị và học thuật "
https://usvietnam.uoregon.edu/henry-kissinger-di-san-chinh-tri-va-hoc-thuat/

As the author said, "Henry Kissinger is a controversial figure. During the Vietnam War, he was criticized from many sides: the Republic of Vietnam blamed him for betraying them; the Democratic Republic of Vietnam hated him because of the B-52 bombings in the North. The anti-war faction opposed him because the war should have ended 7 years before the Paris peace talks began."

However,

First, Kissinger makes policies to serve America's interests, in his opinion, not to serve the Republic of Vietnam or the Democratic Republic of Vietnam or to please the anti-war faction.

Second, it was John F. Kennedy (who sent special forces into South Vietnam) and Lyndon Johnson (who massively fought and bombed North Vietnam) who started the escalation process. When Kissinger came to power, the US already had 500,000 troops in the South. The issue for Kissinger was whether to continue the war or withdraw.

Third, when negotiating with Le Duc Tho, Kissinger wanted to use military pressure (escalating the war) and diplomacy (negotiating with Soviet Russia and China) to reach a political solution. But the relationship between military forces on the battlefield and America's internal politics did not allow the United States to continue the war, but as he predicted, in an article from January 1969 in Foreign Affairs, the United States would not win the war “within a period or with force levels politically acceptable to the American people”. He also miscalculated North Vietnam's breaking point.

Fourth, Kissinger's goal is to safely withdraw troops and maintain America's credibility in the power competition between major powers. People criticize Kissinger for lying and cheating when carrying out secret diplomacy. But without secret negotiations to avoid immediate public reaction and opposition, how could China be "opened" with the Shanghai Joint Communiqué in 1972?

Above is the first part of the article. In the later parts, the author talks about Kissinger's "Realism" and the policy of nuclear weapons. Prof. Nguyen Manh Hung praised Kissinger's role in changing the face of the world in favor of America, when, along with Nixon, he created the tripartite posture (Soviet Russia - China - United States).

I was born after the Vietnam war. I pay more attention to Kissinger's reflections on Artificial Intelligence and today's times, an interesting thought that the essay does not mention about.
https://mitpressbookstore.mit.edu/book/9780316273992

"Artificial Intelligence and the Human Future" is one of my favorite books. 

This book ventures beyond a purely technical exploration, aiming instead to address the strategic and philosophical inquiries arising from the emergence of AI technology.

Best,

em Khôi 

Nguyen Luong Hai Khoi, US-Vietnam Research Center, University of Oregon 

Managing Editor, US-Vietnam Review 

VN: https://usvietnam.uoregon.edu/ EN: https://usvietnam.uoregon.edu/en/

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 9:04 AM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Anh Thái,

By the time that the Paris Peace Agreement was signed, I did not believe that peace would last.
It just gave every one a new context to proceed, understood that each armed forces would come
back again if the agreement did not work out.
-- In an article then by the DRV, peace at least temporarily stopped the US bombings and shelling,
    the withdrawals of the US troops and the US ally troops out of Vietnam, the article said, they won
    three out of five (it left intact the US aids to south Vietnam and the south Vietnamese armed forces).
    This, one may say, was the big win of the negotiators of the DRV and PRG.
-- The peace agreement left the south Vietnamese with its own military forces, and the US
    huge military and economic aids and the RVN to engage in prolonged political battle with the
    third force and the PRG.  This was also a win for the third force to have a voice in the peace process.
    However, by this time, the US had already written off the RVN.
-- After the reunification in 1976, according to Nguyễn Khắc Viện, the SRV defined the task of
    disarmament (3 years by Trường Chinh) and keeping the US from coming back. There was no
    way for the SRV strategists to know that the US by this time had abandoned the RVN
    and had no heart to come back to VN.

So, like the boxing referee reminding the boxers: "defend yourself at all time."  Remember it was a war.

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 8:36 AM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Anh Thái,

I did try to understand several close friends of mine, arguing that the current government recognize the statehood of south Vietnam, which managed the
Hoàng Sa archipelago from 1955 from the French, and the tacit agreement of the US which needed the Biển Đông space to block the sea flank of and attack
north Vietnam.  This move, the argument went, may get the US to agree with the SRV in the defense of the its claims in Biển Đông.  Nobody
could confirm that this move would make the US change its position (from free sea lane), nor such collaboration would last against the stronger
US-China relationship.

Not only that the current Vietnamese government had to abandon the "4 no's" policy, but to make a military alliance with the US in the biển Đông
dispute.  The US is an unreliable partner militarily anyway.

I may not understand this position well... I'm just trying to recreate what I could not agree with.  However, it fades out anyway.

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear anh Nhàn,

It would be great if you could elaborate on "However, even so, in hindsight, and then, it did not prove to help at all."

Since the Sino-Soviet split began in the late 1950s, after Khrushchev's rise to power and years before Kissinger became involved in politics, he did not do much for the split between China and the Soviet Union. Kissinger did play a role in the past 50 years helping China to get where it is today: A threat to regional peace and security. This topic is outside the VSG scope.

Best,

Calvin Thai

Independent

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 7:06 AM
To: David Marr <phanmarr@gmail.com>; VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear All,

I would like to combine David's statement with similar ones made by others in the past into one single statement before addressing it. That is, had the RVN government fully complied with the Paris Peace Agreement, moved to direct talks with PRG leaders or Third Force members, "it’s possible resumption of war could have been avoided."

It is true that the aspirations of many PRG leaders were not synonymous to those of DRV leaders; it is also true that many Third Force members were Vietnamese patriots. However, since Le Duan started the war, unless he was defeated, only Le Duan could stop the war, not the RVN government, not PRG leaders, not Third Force members. As of today, there is no evidence to support the argument that Le Duan abandoned his goal to take over the South by force.

As written in my earlier post, "When sending Le Duc Tho to Paris to lead talks with the U.S., Le Duan provided Tho with two non-negotiable demands: 1. to withdraw American armed forces from the South, 2. to keep North Vietnamese armed forces in the South, (""Mấu chốt là ở chỗ quân Mỹ phải ra còn quân ta thì ở lại”. Bí thư thứ nhất Ban Chấp hành Trung ương Đảng Lê Duẩn đã giao nhiệm vụ đó cho đồng chí Lê Đức Thọ - Tư lệnh mặt trận ngoại giao đàm phán với Mỹ ở Paris trước khi đồng chí lên đường sang Paris vào tháng 6-1968... Đối với mặt trận ngoại giao ở Paris, Bộ Chính trị và Chủ tịch Hồ Chí Minh đã chỉ đạo thực hiện sách lược “hai là một và một là hai”. Về đối ngoại, ta có hai đoàn tham gia đàm phán: Đoàn của Chính phủ Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa và Đoàn của Mặt trận Dân tộc giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam, sau là của Chính phủ cách mạng lâm thời miền Nam Việt Nam. Nhưng thực chất, cả hai đoàn đều do Bộ Chính trị và Bác Hồ chỉ đạo, cùng thực hiện một nhiệm vụ với ưu tiên là buộc quân Mỹ phải rút ra khỏi miền Nam Việt Nam, còn quân ta thì ở lại." Le Trung Nguyet's "Đảng và Bác Hồ từ Điện Biên đến Đại thắng Mùa Xuân 1975", 2015. Nguyet was Tho's daughter). Rogers noted these two DRV demands in his 1969 speech."

Le Duan's insistence to keep his troops in the South was not for peace. The Paris Peace Agreement was the decisive factor in helping Le Duan achieve his long-term goal of war. 

Calvin Thai

Independent

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 8:33 AM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Re: [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Anh Calvin,

The statement "in my research, I argued that there were two independent and sovereign states coexisting in Vietnam during the war: the RVN in the South and the DRV in the North..."
came up among Vietnamese scholars when discussing biển Đông, since the RVN statehood might bolster Vietnam's claims in the international court.  However, even so, in hindsight,
and then, it did not prove to help at all.

On the legacy of Kissinger, besides pulling China and Egypt away from the Soviet Union, serving the US interests well, his actions in Chile, Cambodia, the Xmas bombing of Hanoi in 1972,
... , unnecessary and uncalled for, amount to war crimes.

Best,
Nhan

From: Andrew Wells-Dang <andrewwd@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 2:11 PM
To: David Marr <phanmarr@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Hi all, you may be interested in this personal testimony about Kissinger's passing from a Vietnamese American viewpoint: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2023/12/05/henry-kissinger-death-legacy-vietnam-war-cambodia/71797183007/

Andrew Wells-Dang

U.S. Institute of Peace

From: greg nagle <gnagle2000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 12:09 PM
To: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

I had not understood  or forgot about Kissinger's collaboration with Nixon's people to derail the peace talks before the 1968 US election.



In one series of scribbles, Haldeman reported Henry Kissinger’s willingness to inform on his U.S. diplomatic colleagues, and keep Nixon updated on President Lyndon Johnson’s furious, eleventh-hour efforts to end the Vietnam War.

Nixon was especially anxious on the night October 22, 1968. He had entered the fall campaign with a formidable lead over Vice President Hubert Humphrey, but the polls were narrowing as working-class Democrats returned to their party and Johnson’s efforts to make peace made news. Nixon believed he would prevail, unless a major event reset the political topography. He knew that Johnson knew that too.

According to Haldeman’s notes, Kissinger alerted the Nixon campaign in late September, and again in early October, that something was up. Johnson was willing to halt the U.S. bombing of the North, and with the Soviets applying pressure on Hanoi to meet certain American conditions, the odds were never better for an early settlement of the conflict, which had already claimed 30,000 American lives and torn America apart.

When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election

When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election

It took decades to unravel Nixon’s sabotage of Vietnam peace talks. Now, the full story can be told.

Hmmm.......interesting take, someone who did great evil also did some good. I had not much understood his role in nuclear arms treaties. The author Scott Ritter who was a vehement opponent of the Iraq war nonetheless says:

"It turns out that without Henry Kissinger, there probably would have been no INF treaty, no START treaty, no SALT agreements, no ABM treaty — no arms control.

Without Henry Kissinger, there would very likely have been a nuclear war."

SCOTT RITTER: Kissinger - War Criminal Who Saved the World

SCOTT RITTER: Kissinger - War Criminal Who Saved the World

The United States' most notorious diplomat was behind key nuclear arms control treaties with the USSR that kept ...

Greg Nagle

PhD Forest and watershed science. Cornell University 

From: Benedict Kerkvliet <ben.kerkvliet@anu.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:32 PM
To: David Marr <phanmarr@gmail.com>; Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

4 Dec 2023, Honolulu

Dr. Kissinger wrote informative, analytical books about world politics and the background to World War II, books that I read as an undergraduate at Whitman College and as a grad student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the early and mid 1960s.  As the US wars in Southeast Asia during that same period grew, Kissinger became a consultant to the US State Department during the LBJ (Johnson) administration, pressing for a more US military action in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. In early 1967, he came to the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus and gave a speech along those lines. During his visit, some UW faculty arranged a smallish meeting with Kissinger and invited a few grad students as well as faculty to attend. I was somehow among those invited. Kissinger spoke for several minutes, giving a synopsis of his pitch about how vital it was for the US to stop the "Vietnamese communists" in their tracks. During Q & A, several of us challenged Dr. Kissinger's analysis. I vividly recall how ignorant he was of Vietnamese history, society, and political dynamics and that such ignorance greatly stunted his ability to understand what was evolving in Vietnam circa 1950s-1960s. 

Ben

Ben Kerkvliet

Emeritus Professor

Australian National University 

From: David Marr <phanmarr@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:50 PM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Hello all,

I’ve just finished rereading John Prados, ‘Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975’.  Not much on 1945-54, but picks up by the late 1960s.  Much stronger on American dimensions than DRV/NLF or RVN.

I believe John passed away in 2021.

David Marr

ANU

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:36 PM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear anh Nhàn et al,

1. On the number of Vietnam's "governments" today, we should separate facts from fiction. The fact is the Vietnamese people have one government. This government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens and for compliance with Vietnam's Constitution and its signed international treaties about human rights.

A case in point, list members may be interested in the news that Hanoi's municipal Department of Culture and Sports has just banned 30 artworks from an exhibit:
"Sở Văn hoá - Thể thao Hà Nội đã cấp phép cho treo 154 bức, còn 30 bức khác bị loại khỏi triển lãm và đã xuất hiện trên các trang mạng xã hội như Facebook ở Việt Nam.
Số tranh gò đồng, gắn liền tên các văn nghệ sĩ, trí thức nổi tiếng qua nhiều thế hệ có các ông như triết gia Trần Đức Thảo, học giả Phan Khôi, nhà thơ Trương Tửu, các nhân vật từng bị đày ải một thời ở miền Bắc VN: Trần Dần, Lê Đạt, Phùng Quán, Hoàng Cầm."
https://www.bbc.com/vietnamese/articles/cw02rdyeeqwo

The artwork ban of Hanoi's officials is a clear violation of Vietnam's Constitution and its signed treaties. With the 50th anniversary of the country's reunification less than two years away, human rights violations ranging from restricting freedom of expression to arbitrary imprisonment should no longer be ignored or tolerated by anyone who cares for the betterment of Vietnam and its people.

2. On the 4 sides signing the Paris Peace Agreement, in my research, I argued that there were two independent and sovereign states coexisting in Vietnam during the war: the RVN in the South and the DRV in the North, until the demise of the RVN in 1975. After the argument appeared in Vietnam's state media years ago, it has been cited by others.

Cheers,

Calvin Thai

Independent

From: David Marr <phanmarr@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 7:42 PM
To: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

I have no liking for Kissinger.  Our Indochina Resource Center pubicised the January 1973 Agreement in good faith. If the RVN had moved to direct talks with PRG leaders it’s possible resumption of war could have been avoided. PRG and DRV aspirations were not synonymous.

David Marr

ANU

From: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@temple.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 4:47 PM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] [External] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear Calvin,

Thanks for a thorough review of the Paris Peace Agreement. 

Many have since restate this: "The RVN, as an independent and sovereign state", which Nguyen Van Thieu repeated but Kissinger refuted him.
On the last page of the Paris Peace Agreement, there are 4 sides, i.e. four governments.  The Paris Peace Agreement confirms the DRV and PRG's
narrative: 2 miền, 1 nước, 3 chính phủ.  The Vietnamese today has 8 governments, 7 in exile.

I celebrated the death of this terrible and cruel criminal.   There was one Vietnamese anti-war killed in Chile when Allende was overthrown.
This poster has been hung on my door.

Best,
Nhan

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 8:22 AM
To: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: [Vsg] Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

Dear List,

The passing of Henry Kissinger has generated reactions from around the world in the past several days:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/11/30/henry-kissinger-death-reactions-controversy/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/asia/kissinger-cambodia-vietnam-war-crimes.html

Kissinger's words and deeds are now part of history, especially his role in ending the Vietnam War.

If I may, I would like to re-share some thoughts of mine below. 

Best regards,

Calvin Thai

Independent

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Paris peace negotiations started on May 13, 1968. After more than 4 years, 202 joint meetings among four sides: the U.S., the DRV, the RVN, the NLF-PRG, and 24 secret talks, only between the U.S. and the DRV, the Paris Peace Accords, consisting of 9 Chapters, 23 Articles, were signed on January 27, 1973.

In the past 20+ years, Western academics have written about the agreement with different perspectives. The following is from a Vietnamese American.

In their 1969 speeches, Richard Nixon and William Rogers discussed the U.S. proposals to end the Vietnam War, starting with the withdrawal of American armed forces and North Vietnamese armed forces from the South simultaneously, following with the end to all military activity in the demilitarized zone and the release of prisoners. (Nixon's "Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam", 11/03/69; "Viet-Nam in Perspective; An Address by William P. Rogers", 4/21/69).

When sending Le Duc Tho to Paris to lead talks with the U.S., Le Duan provided Tho with two non-negotiable demands: 1. to withdraw American armed forces from the South, 2. to keep North Vietnamese armed forces in the South, (""Mấu chốt là ở chỗ quân Mỹ phải ra còn quân ta thì ở lại”. Bí thư thứ nhất Ban Chấp hành Trung ương Đảng Lê Duẩn đã giao nhiệm vụ đó cho đồng chí Lê Đức Thọ - Tư lệnh mặt trận ngoại giao đàm phán với Mỹ ở Paris trước khi đồng chí lên đường sang Paris vào tháng 6-1968... Đối với mặt trận ngoại giao ở Paris, Bộ Chính trị và Chủ tịch Hồ Chí Minh đã chỉ đạo thực hiện sách lược “hai là một và một là hai”. Về đối ngoại, ta có hai đoàn tham gia đàm phán: Đoàn của Chính phủ Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa và Đoàn của Mặt trận Dân tộc giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam, sau là của Chính phủ cách mạng lâm thời miền Nam Việt Nam. Nhưng thực chất, cả hai đoàn đều do Bộ Chính trị và Bác Hồ chỉ đạo, cùng thực hiện một nhiệm vụ với ưu tiên là buộc quân Mỹ phải rút ra khỏi miền Nam Việt Nam, còn quân ta thì ở lại." Le Trung Nguyet's "Đảng và Bác Hồ từ Điện Biên đến Đại thắng Mùa Xuân 1975", 2015. Nguyet was Tho's daughter). Rogers noted these two DRV demands in his 1969 speech.

Kissinger and Tho met in private sessions between February 21, 1970, and January 13, 1973, before the agreement signing. ("Le Duc Tho-Kissinger Negotiations in Paris", Luu Van Loi & Nguyen Anh Vu, 1996).

The DRV and the NLF-PRG adhered to a single strategy over the entire period, "two but one" in private, "one but two" in public (“hai là một và một là hai”), with the DRV in full control but the NLF-PRG well-informed and in sync. However, the U.S. often kept the RVN in the dark in its negotiations with the DRV.

The demand for the withdrawal of North Vietnamese armed forces from the South was to ensure a lasting peace for tens of millions of Vietnamese. After the U.S. unilaterally dropped the demand, Nguyen Van Thieu rejected the proposed agreement in his speech on October 24, 1972.

Unlike the relationship between the DRV and the NLF-PRG, the RVN and the U.S. were allies. The RVN, as an independent and sovereign state, did not allow any countries to make decisions about its future without its approval. In other words, there were interests of three sides: the RVN, the U.S. and the DRV/NLF-PRG, involved in the Paris peace negotiations.

A series of letters between Nixon and Thieu took place in the following 10 weeks. Below are the excerpts from three of them:
1. "I understand from your letter and from General Haig's personal report that your principal remaining concern with respect to the draft agreement is the status of North Vietnamese forces now in South Vietnam. As General Haig explained to you, it is our intention to deal with this problem first by seeking to insert a reference to respect for the demilitarized zone in the proposed agreement and, second, by proposing a clause which provides for the reduction and demobilization of forces on both sides in South Vietnam on a one-to-one basis and to have demobilized personnel return to their homes." (Nixon's November 14, 1972 letter to Thieu).

2. "Over the last two months—through my personal letters, through my extensive personal discussions with your emissary, through communications via Dr. Kissinger, General Haig, and Ambassador Bunker, and through daily consultations in Paris—I have kept you scrupulously informed of the progress of the negotiations. I have sought to convey to you my best judgment of what is in our mutual interest. I have given you every opportunity to join with me in bringing peace with honor to the people of South Vietnam.
General Haig's mission now represents my final effort to point out to you the necessity for joint action and to convey my irrevocable intention to proceed, preferably with your cooperation but, if necessary, alone.
...
You are also aware of certain military actions which will have been initiated prior to General Haig's arrival. As he will explain to you, these actions are meant to convey to the enemy my determination to bring the conflict to a rapid end—as well as to show what I am prepared to do in case of violation of the agreement, I do not want you to be left, under any circumstances, with the mistaken impression that these actions signal a willingness or intent to continue U.S. military involvement if Hanoi meets the requirements for a settlement which I have set.
If the present lack of collaboration between us continues and if you decide not to join us in proceeding now to a settlement, it can only result in a fundamental change in the character of our relationship. I am convinced that your refusal to join us would be an invitation to disaster—to the loss of all that we together have fought for over the past decade. It would be inexcusable above all because we will have lost a just and honorable alternative." (Nixon's December 17, 1972 letter to Thieu). Operation Linebacker II, aka the Christmas Bombings, was conducted from 18 to 29 December 1972.

3. "There is nothing substantial that I can add to my many previous messages, including my December 17 letter, which clearly stated my opinions and intentions. With respect to the question of North Vietnamese troops, we will again present your views to the Communists as we have done vigorously at every ether opportunity in the negotiations. The result is certain to be once more the rejection of our position. We have explained to you repeatedly why we believe the problem of North Vietnamese troops is manageable under the agreement, and I see no reason to repeat all the arguments.
We will proceed next week in Paris along the lines that General Haig explained to you. Accordingly, if the North Vietnamese meet our concerns on the two outstanding substantive issues in the agreement, concerning the DMZ and type method of signing and if we can arrange acceptable supervisory machinery, we will proceed to conclude the settlement. The gravest consequence would then ensue if your government chose to reject the agreement and split off from the United States. As I said in my December 17 letter, “I am convinced that your refusal to join us would be an invitation to disaster-to the loss of all that we together have fought for over the past decade. It would be inexcusable above all because we will have lost a just and honorable alternative."
...
Should you decide, as I trust you will, to go with us, you have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam. So once more I conclude with an appeal to you to close ranks with us." (Nixon's January 05, 1973 letter to Thieu).

After receiving the pledge from the U.S. President to "respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam", Thieu agreed with the terms in the proposed agreement.

According to John Erlichman, he posed a question to Kissinger on January 23, 1973, “How long do you figure the South Vietnamese can survive under this agreement?" and Kissinger answered, "I think that if they're lucky they can hold out for a year and a half". "When Kissinger's assistant John Negroponte opined that the agreement was not in the best interests of South Vietnam, Kissinger asked him, "Do you want us to stay there forever?"" ("Witness to Power: The Nixon Years", John Erlichman, 1982. Erlichman was the White House Counsel and Nixon's Assistant; "No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam", Larry Berman, 2001).

Two years and three months after the agreement signing, the RVN was taken over by North Vietnamese armed forces. Le Duan's demand to maintain his 200,000+ troops in the South was obviously not intended for the peacekeeping mission. When American armed forces left and the U.S. failed to live up to its word, the demise of the RVN was inevitable.

In his 1969 "Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam", Nixon stated, "A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends."

What the U.S. did in the Paris peace negotiations and the aftermath led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese at sea and in re-education camps, and the fall of the entire country into an authoritarian regime. It left a dark stain in American history.