The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

From: Tuan Hoang <tuannyriver@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 7:42 AM
To: vsg@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] My last statement

Since the thread has been closed, Dr. Hiep Duc asked the Rules committee (Maggie Bodemer, Judith Henchy, Tuan Hoang, and Rachel Tough) to add the following addendum:

Regarding the statement from NVT which was the subject of discussion, what can we learn about this ?. We know that it is not in NVT resignation speech nor in Michael McLear book that all Vietnamese web pages referred to. So we don’t know when, where and in what context this statement was made. A strong possibility is this statement was planted or distorted from the original in the Vietnamese translation of McLear book. Mistranslated or modification in translation is often found in many translation works in Vietnam. I don’t have the Vietnamese translation book of M. Mắc-lia so I cannot check it.

I have been on this list for so long, since the time of the late prof. Vĩnh Sính of Alberta University with whom I had a good experience in Vietnam in 1987 listening to his explanation of Han scripts in Dinh Bo Linh temple during our trip to Hoa Lư, Ninh Bình. I love this list and want it to prosper to be the place to obtain information and discuss topics for the benefits of all in promoting knowledge of Vietnam, the country I love.

We are appreciative of Dr. Duc's respect for the List and the rules.

Tuan Hoang

Pepperdine University
www.tuannyriver.com/about

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 10:11 PM
To: Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu; vsg@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] My last statement

Dear anh Chung et al,

You wrote,

"Do a quick google, this is what I find -

https://googletienlang2014.blogspot.com/2015/07/thi-lich-su-nam-nay-em-nao-nghe-loi-ong.html

Nich-Sơn còn đòi cắt cổ Nguyễn Văn Thiệu nếu Thiệu không nghe lời Mỹ ký Hiệp định Pari.
Ngay tổng thống VNCH cũng thừa nhận thân phận làm lính đánh thuê cho Mỹ qua câu nói nổi tiếng: "Nếu Mỹ còn viện trợ thì chúng tôi còn chống cộng."
"Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập ![32]" "

I just looked at the youtube channel you referred to earlier, and the website where you got the quote allegedly from Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's resignation speech in April 1975. They both belong to "pro-Hanoi" groups. The latter is on the extreme side.

The group "googletienlang2014" attacked the late historian Phan Huy Lê in the past:

https://googletienlang2014.blogspot.com/2015/04/le-van-tam-va-cau-chuyen-xuyen-tac-lich.html

https://googletienlang2014.blogspot.com/2021/10/ca-ngoi-phan-thanh-gian-phan-huy-le.html

This is why your quote did not exist in Western sources as other VSG members pointed out.

In order to have a good discussion, we should do our best to stay on facts, use credible sources, good logic and reasoning, IMHO.

Best regards,

Calvin Thai

From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 6:32 PM
To: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] My last statement

Dear Chung and all,

I find it interesting what you have found these references for the statement “Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập”.

We know that it was not in the resignation speech of NVT but it must be somewhere.

The question is when and where this statement was made and in what context it is. All the references to this statement in Vietnamese as you presented are secondary sources. I try to find the original source by tracing all these web articles. These Vietnamese secondary sources finally pointed to a single source in Michael Mc Lear. Vietnam, the ten thousand day war. Thames Methuen. London. 1982. pg. 895.

I look into this book by Michael McLear. But there is no page 895 which was referenced in the Vietnamese sources. The book has only 492 pages. So maybe the secondary sources misprinted and they all copied each other this misprint. I try pages 95, 195, 295, 395, 89 but no luck. I look at the index on Nguyen Van Thieu on page 492, there are a number of pages referenced about US support ( p 189, 393, 407, 408, 425, 427, 431, 434). I read all these pages but do not find this statement from NVT except page 434 that has something related.

It says

Quote start

…“Yet there was no recognition of this, and no additional funding and no request to the Congress for these amounts.’ In effect, says President Thieu, ‘The economic aid was cut, the miliary aid was cut – and we had no means to fight.’

Quote end

I don’t have time to read and scan the whole book for this statement made by Thieu in this book. It seems pedantic but for rigorous study or research in any field, it is of utmost important to find the primary data source as it has implication for any interpretation.

Of course the onus is not on me to provide the exact source of where, when and in what context this NVT statement was made. It is part of my routine examination of manuscripts and their references within. But I am grateful if any of us in this can find the reference for this statement in Michael McLear or in any book or research articles. I mean reference to the exact primary source not secondary source.

Best

Dr Hiep Nguyen

Principal Scientist, Australia.

From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] My last statement

Dear Chung,

Thí statement does not mean NVT was a lackey of the US or was fighting for the US. The context in his resignation speech was the opposite of what your narrative. He fought against the US policy and for his South Vietnam. That is the gist of your quote to prove your false narrative.

Don't divert attention to the existence or non-existence of this selective statement from your false narrative

Best

Dr Hiep Nguyen

Australia

From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 10:55 AM
To: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Subject: [Vsg] My last statement

Do a quick google, this is what I find -

https://googletienlang2014.blogspot.com/2015/07/thi-lich-su-nam-nay-em-nao-nghe-loi-ong.html

(20+) Facebook https://www.facebook.com/154918311749554/photos/a.156421361599249/919264261981618/?paipv=0&eav=AfZhMP4PTIPkRzdy47kXdb3Rr74iPWsgEZm-LSv6GrXnVE-L9jdgCX-MyG6V5aEAl3A

PHẢN BÁC Quan điểm Sai trái, Thù địch

28 tháng 4, 2021 ·

"Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập ". Nguyễn Văn Thiệu.

https://www.facebook.com/VietnamPeoplesNavy/photos/a.815178371900769/5056113874473843/?type=3

“Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi dinh Độc lập”.

https://baobinhdinh.vn/viewer.aspx?macm=38&macmp=38&mabb=108230

Như trong cuốn Vietnam, the ten thousand day war (Việt Nam, cuộc chiến mười nghìn ngày) xuất bản tại London (Luân Đôn) năm 1982, tác giả M.McLear (M.Mắc-lia) dẫn lời của Nguyễn Văn Thiệu: “Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi dinh Độc Lập”.

http://mobile.coviet.vn/detail.aspx?key=Nguy%E1%BB%85n+V%C4%83n+Thi%E1%BB%87u&type=A

Nguyễn Văn Thiệu đã nói:

· Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau 3 giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập!

· Mỹ còn viện trợ, thì chúng ta còn chống cộng.

· Đừng nghe những gì Cộng sản nói, mà hãy nhìn kỹ những gì Cộng sản làm!

https://huongsenviet.com/viet-nam-cong-hoa-co-tu-nuoi-noi-chinh-no

Như trong cuốn Việt Nam, cuộc chiến mười nghìn ngày xuất bản tại London năm 1982, tác giả M.Mắc-lia dẫn lời của Nguyễn Văn Thiệu: “Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi dinh Độc Lập”.

Những nhược điểm của Quân lực Việt Nam Cộng hòa càng chứng minh nhận xét của Nguyễn Văn Thiệu: "Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau 3 giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập!".
[37]

37.
^ Michael Mc Lear. Vietnam, the ten thousand day war. Thames Methuen. London. 1982. pg. 895.

https://sachhiem.net/LICHSU/S/SH10_ChientranhVN.ph

"Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập!" (GS Trần Chung Ngọc,
Vài Suy Tư Về Ngày 30 Tháng Tư)

http://hoangthinhatle.com/2023/01/16/bo-mat-that-cua-che-do-bu-nhin-vnch-bai-2

Sử liệu “Vietnam, the ten thousand day war”, NXB Thames Methuan, London, xuất bản năm 1982 đã ghi nhận một số câu nói của Nguyễn Văn Thiệu: “Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng ta nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau 3 giờ, chúng ta sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập!”, “Mỹ còn viện trợ, thì chúng ta còn chống cộng”.

nguyenvanthieu (vietnamvanhien.org)

Câu nói nổi tiếng

Đừng nghe những gì Cộng sản nói, mà hãy nhìn những gì Cộng sản làm!
[9]
Đối với Cộng sản Việt Nam không có hội đàm/thương thảo, mà chỉ có đem bom ném lên đầu chúng nó!
Đất nước còn, còn tất cả; Đất nước mất, mất tất cả.[10]
Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau 3 giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập! [11]

http://kenhantan.com/2019/11/07/nguoi-gia-chiem-nghiem-60

Ông NGUYỄN VĂN THIỆU, Tổng thống VNCH quá cố đã viết về cái sự độc lập của quân lực VNCH:

Ông đại tướng WESTMOLAND của Hoa Kỳ, đã ca ngợi quân lực VNCH và chứng minh cuộc chiến vừa qua là “nội chiến”:

https://canhco.net/ngay-den-toi-la-khi-dan-chu-tao-lao-len-tieng-p544792.html

Theo tác giả M.McLear viết trong cuốn “Vietnam, the ten thousand day war (Việt Nam, cuộc chiến mười nghìn ngày) xuất bản năm 1982, khi dẫn lời của Nguyễn Văn Thiệu: “Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi dinh Độc Lập”.

https://letungchau.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/t%E1%BB%95ng-th%E1%BB%91ng-nguy%E1%BB%85n-van-thieu

Câu nói nổi tiếng:

. Đừng nghe những gì Cộng sản nói, mà hãy nhìn kỹ những gì Cộng sản làm!

Ăn cơm Quốc gia thờ ma Cộng sản (Biếm chỉ Cộng sản nằm vùng khủng bố miền Nam Việt Nam trước năm 1975)
Công đức ngàn đời con tố mẹ, tình nghĩa trăm năm vợ tố chồng (Biếm chỉ chính sách đấu tố của Cộng sản)
Đất nước còn, còn tất cả; cộng sản thắng, mất tất cả.
Tôi mà tham nhũng thì cái chính phủ này sẽ sụp đổ chỉ trong 3 ngày!
Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau 3 giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập!
Làm kẻ thù của Mỹ thì dễ, làm bạn với Mỹ thì rất khó.
Sống không có tự do là đã chết.
Mỹ còn viện trợ, thì chúng ta còn chống cộng.(Theo vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyễn_Văn_Thiệu)

https://hieuminh.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/chuyen-ngay-nay-nam-xua

– Rồi thì Nguyễn Văn Thiệu: “Nếu Hoa Kỳ mà không viện trợ cho chúng tôi nữa thì không phải là một ngày, một tháng hay một năm mà chỉ sau ba giờ, chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi Dinh Độc Lập! “

V.V.

From: Paul Schmehl <paul.schmehl@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 10:23 AM
To: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Cc: vsg@uw.edu; Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

And without the aid of China, the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact nations, the North could not have been the aggressor that it was. It’s theoretically possible that, had the communists not had the support of other communist nations, the South could have survived and even defeated them.

As HVT pointed out, it was the support of the communist nations without corresponding support from the so-called allies of the South that forced him to conclude that his country was doomed.

I’m not sure what your point is.

Paul Schmehl

paul.schmehl@gmail.com

Indepedent Researcher

From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 7:41 AM
To: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>; vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Hi Hiep Duc,

You take the the CIA text as the complete translation of NVT’s speech. I don’t think so. If so, that can be stated at the top of the text. But every few paragraphs, there is a note that says “No objection to Declassification in Full”. Why so many of these?

In summary, our difference is your accusation that I make up the quote and my certainty that NVT did make such a statement. Actually I listened to this speech a long time ago, and what NVT said about his condition for continuing the anti-communist fight has stuck in my mind ever since.

The Vietnamese text that I cite comes from an anti-communist source. There is little reason why they should make up such a quote.

Anyhow, that one difference should not take away all my different arguments.

I think we have wasted a lot of verbiage on this issue. Let’s give it a rest.

NBC

From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 6:22 AM
To: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Dear Chung,

Did you actually read NVT resignation speech ?. There is no such quote in his speech. NVT did not say it.

Getting a so-called quote ““If the U.S. continues to provide aid, we will continue to fight the communists. If the U.S.ceases to provide aid, it isn’t just one day, one month or one year, but in just three hours we will leave the Independent Palace.” from an obscure place and spinning a false narrative is no difference from the MAGA Trumpists creating false narratives based on fictious concoction from conspiracy theories.

It would be funny if this is passed as a fringe idea without any merit but this created “fact” and the inference and misinformation you made from this made many people fell for it and believed in the inference. And this is the danger of this false narrative which still persists. It is not unlike a lot of the MAGA and far-right people fall for the insane belief that Trump won the 2020 election and the electronic machines were rigged. The consequence is enormous not only for the US democracy but the world. And so for this misinformation you spin out had a huge consequence.

Your selected quote is a distortion even if it actually existed. A selected quote is still selected out of context as evidence by your subsequent highlight from it

“I quote that statement by NVT to highlight what NVT wanted to highlight: “that his fighting communism depends entirely upon the U.S.. Without US aid, he will quit.” Again I doubt that you actually read his speech. NVT said and explained that he fought against the US coercive pressures for many years to force him to sign the Paris Agreement allowing the North Vietnamese to have a resting period and prepare for an offensive once it recovered and had the American out of the equation. The US promised many things including military and economic aid to South Vietnam and assured that if the Agreement was broken it provided everything to defend it. NVT said that he told the US he did not expect the US had to provide aid to his nation for many years in the future once the war was over as the nation can recover and prosper like South Korea and Taiwan. He did not want to depend on US aid for ever and his nation can stand by its own feet. And when his nation was in danger, he said the US did not fulfill its promises and expected him to do the impossible that he can defend without any aid (Ukraine likewise will fall in the war against Russian invasion if the US stop providing aid as demanded by MAGA and far left people).

And his resignation (you said “quit”) was not because he was an autocrat and only resigned when the US (betraying him in its promises) stopped the aid. He resigned because many people in the US and some people in Vietnam believed that he was the obstacle for peace by not yielding to the demands and not ceding the territories to North Vietnam. And his hope that the resignation will allow US Congress to keep supporting and provide aid in this critical survival time of his nation to the new government.

Your defence of only using the selected fictious quote to highlight his lackey status of fighting for the US when in fact he fought against the US and the North Vietnam to protect his national interest.

Please read NVT resignation speech fully and see the totality of his message and not quoting fictious non-existence sentence to misinform and casting a person in the bad light to fit to your false narrative

Dr Hiep Nguyen

Principal scientist

Environment & Heritage NSW

Australia

From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 3:52 AM
To: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>; vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Hi Hiep Đuc,

I quote that statement by NVT to highlight what NVT wanted to highlight: “that his fighting communism depends entirely upon the U.S.. Without US aid, he will quit.” That’s the meaning of his statement, and that’s all I want to call attention to here. Since NVT never contradicted that statement in his speech, there is no need for me to refer to it. As it’s a very interesting point that he made, it deserves our listening.

People can draw other interpretations, or make a discussion of the whole speech, but those are not mine.

NBC

From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 8:03 PM
To: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Sloppy selective quote from dubious source and attribute this to support a pre-conceived narrative is in no way fit for academic research.

You don’t fit selective data to theory, rather you should fit theory to the totality of data in research to prove or falsify your theory. In my role as a editor of a journal (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment), fitting selective data is as worse as creating data to fit to theory and is classified as scientific fraud. This leads to untold damages if passed by (ẹ.g McBride case of scientific fraud).

Best

Hiep

Environment and Heritages, NSW

Australia

From: Paul Schmehl <paul.schmehl@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 7:41 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

This is a much more readable copy of the speech: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22143270-text-of-thieus-resignation-speech

The quote that Anh Chung Nguyen provided appears nowhere in the speech, and the speech speaks very highly of allied efforts to aid South Vietnam.

For example, THANKS TO THE DETERMINATION OF OUR U.S. ALLY AND OTHER ALLIES, THANKS TO THE PRESENCE OF HALF A MILLION ALLIED TROOPS FROM SIX ALLIED COUNTRIES, AAD THANKS TO THE EFFECTIVE USE OF U.S. ATR AMD NAVAL FORCES TO - PUNISH THE NORTH VIETNAMESE AGGRESSORS BOTH IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, VE ADVANCED TOWARD A VERY FINE SITUATION UP TO 1963. "

Paul Schmehl

paul.schmehl@gmail.com

From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 6:22 PM
To: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

A quote out of the context is misinformed and gives rise of false narrative. You quote one sentence from his speech to give the impression that he follow US instruction to carry the US policy and is therefore a lackey. While the reverse is true. He objected strongly to US pressures and criticised the US policy.

It likes Russia misinformation that Zelenskyy is a U S lackey.

Best

Hiệp

EPA, Australia

From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 5:54 PM
To: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>; vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Hi Hiep Duc,

This is where I take my quote:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WXUdOgDAGNA

NBC

From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 4:08 PM
To: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>; vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Anh Chung Nguyen wrote

Nguyen Van Thieu, in his last speech to the nation before resigning, said “If the U.S. continues to provide aid, we will continue to fight the communists. If the U.S.ceases to provide aid, it isn’t just one day, one month or one year, but in just three hours we will leave the Independent Palace.”

The full speech of Nguyen Van Thieu was an extraordinarily attack on US and US betrayal on South Vietnam. His blistering attack reflect deep anger. I can not find the above quote from Chung Nguỵen

Thieu full speech is here translated to English

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/loc-hak-244-10-4-5

Quote out of context is misinformed. Some related part of the speech is attached.

Best

Hiep

EPA, NSW

From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 3:07 PM
To: vsg@uw.edu
Cc: Ngo Thanh Nhan <nhan@cs.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Growing up in the Republic of South Vietnam, and being a refugee from the North, I accepted totally the anticommunist policy of the South. All the mythologies of Communist brutality, stories of “bỏ rọ trôi sông” (putting in a cage and let flow down the river), and the incredible level of stupidity of the cadres had hardened in my mind. Only by coming the U.S. in late 1971, reading western works on Vietnam, I began to change my view. During the French-Viet Minh war, the U.S. had supplied 78% of the cost to the French. Following the French withdrawal after the Geneva Accords, the U.S. directly intervened in the internal affairs of Vietnam. It brought Ngo Dinh Diem home to be Prime Minister and then President. The U.S. created the government of South Vietnam, financed its government and its army. Without the U.S., there would be no Republic of South VN.

For those reasons I participated in the anti-war movement in the U.S.,opposing the presence of the U.S. army in Vietnam, participating in the teach-ins against the war.

With the South Vietnamese people, U.S.’s neo-colonial policy had hidden U.S. role in the war. When asked by a delegate of U.S. Congressmen as to who directed the battles every year, General Cao Van Vien said MACV had provided the Geneal staff with a plan and we just carried it out. Nguyen Van Thieu, in his last speech to the nation before resigning, said “If the U.S. continues to provide aid, we will continue to fight the communists. If the U.S.ceases to provide aid, it isn’t just one day, one month or one year, but in just three hours we will leave the Independent Palace.” Nguyen Cao Ky, in an interview with the BBC after April 30, 1975, said “With my experience later on, I think all the important military or political decisions were made in Washington, and they let us have, maybe, 24 hours’ warning […] It was true; and it was true when the propaganda of communists condemned us as not nationalists but as puppets and lackeys of America.”

To the majority of South Vietnamese, the US didn’t intervene directly in the local administration as the French did, plus with the tradition of Western capitalism, this neo-colonial policy allowed South Vietnam a breathing space in the areas of literary creation, religion and politics. For that, a section of the South Vietnamese population, I think, stilll have a vague understanding of the U.S. role in Vietnam.

One irony of the war is that during the war the U.S. claimed that it fought the communists to prevent the expansion of China; after the war, now the U.S. supports Vietnam to, well, to prevent the expansion of China.

This neo-colonial policy of the U.S. continues to be carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan, with results as serious as it was in Vietnam.

In 1996 I began to work full time for the William Joiner Center. Mr. Kevin Bowen, its director, had a unique talent: he gathered around him a group of exceptional writers and poets who came to Boston to teach at the annual two-week Summer Writers Workshop. They were Tim O’Brien, Yusef Komunyakaa, Grace Paley, Bruce Weigl, Larry Heinemann, Sam Hamill, Lady Borton, Michael Herr, Fred Marchant, Martha Collins, Carolyn Forché, Martín Espada, John Dean, Philip Caputo, Askold Melnyczuk, Lloyd Schwartz, Paul Atwood, Demetria Martinez, Martha Nelson, Danielle Georges, George Kovach, Brian Turner, Sean Davis, v.v.

Many among them had captured the most notable literary awards, such as Pulitzer, National Book Award, San Francisco Poetry Award, National Book Critics Circle Award, Washington Prize, Washington Poets Association, Lifetime Achievement in Poetry Award, Pushcart Prize, Anisfield-Wolf Award, Ohioana Award, Lannan Translation Series Award, v.v. They have written works that have become the classics novel of the Vietnam war, exposing the futility, brutality, and inhumanity of that war. For examples, the trilogy of Tim O’Brien – “Going After Cacciato”, “The Things They Carried”, “If I Die in a Combat Zone: Box Me Up and Ship Me Home; Larry Heinemann’s “Paco’s Story”; Bruce Weigle’s “Song of Napalm”; Yusef Komunyakaa’s “Dien Cái Dau”; Michael Herr’s “Dispatches”, etc.

Those were not just fictional. They were based on their own experiences fighting that war.

Nguyen Ba Chung

From: Paul Schmehl <paul.schmehl@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 10:20 AM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: vsg@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Calvin, I want to focus on one thing your wrote.

In my opinion, sending combat troops to Vietnam was not a strategic mistake. Allowing and encouraging the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem was a deadly mistake. That costly mistake forced the US hand. We have a saying in America - You broke it. You fix it.

When the US encouraged the assassination of Diem, they were responsible for the consequences. The list of mistakes US politicians made is lengthy and disgusting, but assuming the responsibility for the biggest mistake they ever made in Vietnam was not one of them.

Paul Schmehl

paul.schmehl@gmail.com

From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 7:04 AM
To: vsg@uw.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Since several members were interested in an update to the question, "For or Against, and Why?" about the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, I would like to share some "statistical data" and my answer.

Eleven answers, received on-list and off-list, showed an interesting contrast: 67% (2/3) of members with Vietnamese origin were "For", and 75% (6/8) of members from the West were "Against".

Until scientifically-collected data is available, this piece of data, no matter how imperfect, might be the best we had on the 50th anniversary of the day the last American combat troops left Vietnam.

Below is my answer to the question, "For or Against, and Why?" about the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War:

The signing of the 1954 Geneva Accords divided Vietnam into two halves: North (the Democratic Republic of Vietnam-DRV) and South (the Republic of Vietnam-RVN). Without the U.S. involvement, the Vietnam War would not happen. With the support from the Chinese and Russians, the Vietnamese communists would take over South Vietnam by force.

The Vietnam War led to the death of 58,000+ American soldiers, 250,000+ RVN soldiers, 1,000,000+ DRV soldiers, and 2,000,000+ civilians. The war's aftermath caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people at sea or in the communists' re-education camps.

Prior to the fall of Saigon in April 1975, tens of millions of people in the South were exposed to the ideals, principles and values of freedom and democracy, often taken for granted in the West. The RVN government was not perfect. However, it did provide its citizens with personal freedom to excel in life; it did provide the Vietnamese people an education based on three characteristics: humanism, nation, and liberalism (nhân bản, dân tộc, và khai phóng). While people in the North were instilled with Marxist-Leninist doctrine and hatred, people in the South were taught in schools that humans, not ideologies, were the ultimate goal of education. The sharp contrast between the government and society of the RVN and the DRV can be clearly seen in music and literature.

Without the RVN's existence, there would be no Thái Thanh, Khánh Ly, Lệ Thu, Elvis Phương, Chế Linh, Thanh Tuyền, Phạm Duy, Phạm Đình Chương, Trịnh Công Sơn, Hoàng Thi Thơ, Cung Tiến, Nguyễn Văn Đông, Trần Thiện Thanh, Lam Phương, Vũ Thành An, Tuấn Khanh, Từ Công Phụng, Ngô Thụy Miên, Trúc Phương, Thanh Sơn, Vinh Sử, Vũ Hoàng Chương, Nguyên Sa, Nguyễn Tất Nhiên, Phạm Thiên Thư, Bùi Giáng, Trần Dạ Từ, Cung Trầm Tưởng, Thanh Tâm Tuyền, Tô Thùy Yên, Du Tử Lê, Nhã Ca, Nguyễn Thị Thụy Vũ, Túy Hồng, Nguyễn Thị Hoàng, Mai Thảo, Võ Phiến, Dương Nghiễm Mậu; the list goes on. Almost half of a century after the demise of the RVN, more and more people of many ages from North to South Vietnam nowadays are listening to music, citing poems, reading books from those names.

Roughly 250 years ago, Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death". To generations of people who live in or outside Vietnam and who appreciate the RVN's education and its legacy, the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of the RVN soldiers and American soldiers in the Vietnam War was not in vain.

For all the reasons above, I am for the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Nevertheless, I am against how Washington conducted and exited the Vietnam War. Among other things, the introduction of American combat troops was a deadly strategic mistake. And it was not peace with honor when the U.S. betrayed its ally in the end.

Best regards,

Calvin Thai

Independent

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 5:52 PM David Marr <david.marr@anu.edu.au> wrote:

As a Vietnamese language Marine interpreter in 1962-63 I supported involvement, but increasingly felt we were going about things the wrong way. Departing the Marines, I spent the Summer of 1965 talking with Vietnamese students in Saigon, Hue and Dalat, becoming sympathetic to calls for a Third Way. By 1967 I was convinced that US operations were manifestly wrong. In late September I marched with Vietnamese students in Saigon, carrying a sign reading `US Students Also Demand Peace Now’. I was lucky to exit the country four days later with family. In 1968-69 I joined with other US academics at UC Berkeley and Cornell to form the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, and in 1971 the Indochina Resource Center in Washington.

David Marr

ANU

From: Vsg <vsg-bounces@mailman12.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of Cau Thai
Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2023 1:27 AM
To: vsg@uw.edu
Subject: [Vsg] The U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: For or Against, and Why?

Dear List,

Tomorrow, March 29, 2023, marks the 50th anniversary of the date of the last U.S. combat troops leaving South Vietnam, ending the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

As a student of the Vietnam War, if I may, I would like to ask one question: What is your view on American involvement in that war, whether it is For or Against? and Why?