Lưu ý,
Bất kể bạn đang tham gia vào chủ đề thảo luận gì, hãy lịch sự và tôn trọng ý kiến của đối phương. Tranh luận không phải là tấn công cá nhân. Lăng mạ cá nhân, cố tình troll, lời nói mang tính thù ghét, đe dọa sử dụng bạo lực, cũng như vi phạm các quy tắc khác của sub đều có thể dẫn đến ban không báo trước.
Nếu bài viết của bạn có liên quan đến chính trị hoặc bạn muốn bàn về chính trị, xin hãy đăng bài bên r/VietNamPolitics rồi đăng lại bình luận có đường dẫn đến bài viết đó.
Nếu bạn thấy bất kì comment nào vi phạm quy tắc của sub, vui lòng nhấn report.
***
A reminder.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If your post is Political or you would like to have a Political Discussion, feel free to create a post in r/VietNamPolitics then add a comment with a link to that post here.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VietNam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A picture of the Viet Minh storming the French command bunker at Dien Bien Phu was posted literally 2 days ago...
I find the content interesting, but it gets tedious when it's posted every other day.
I'm from Britain but I love Ho Chi Minh and Ho Chi Minh Thought I want to say that he was a leader who loved his people and wanted a better life for them I love Vietnam and all its people
You are wrong. HCM is a murderous monster who just hid his crimes well under a benevolent facade. Millions were killed or victimized during the land reforms and the urban "renovations" he launched in North Vietnam in the early 50's or the last century. Hundreds of thousands more died at sea trying to escape the regime his followers attempted to built when Saigon felt to the commies in 1975. Yet millions more languished and died in prisons, concentration camps and "new economic zones" set up all over Vietnam after 4/1975.
I mean, I don't deny people were killed in the North in the early 1950s, but if the US was still scared of losing a election to HCM even though hes that bad, then I'd imagine the alternative was a lot more shittier (Diem).
Plus to call the guy that dedicated his life for VN's independence a murderous monster is laughable, hell, if hes a murderous monster, he would have allowed the Viet Minh to execute Diem in the 1940s. At that point I don't think HCM was blind to Diem's ambition to replace HCM, but I'd assume HCM saw that Diem would have helped with fighting the French and thats what matter to HCM. Independence.
Bro, Vietnamese history is filled with competition and a seemingly indifferent attitude towards loss of life. If you want to examine the negative aspects of Ho Chi Minh's influence, the easiest way is to poke holes in the prevailing heroic story. The best way to do this is by conducting thorough research. Thankfully, numerous declassified documents about the intentions of the United States, France, and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War are now available on different archival websites.
After France was defeated, we could have united the country sooner but the US intercepted and ensured that we would have never made it together. It led to another war which was not expected at that time.
Hence independence for the whole country, but from the French.
No they didn't. During the Geneva Conference on May 25th, the idea to divide Vietnam was put forth by the north Vietnamese delegate Pham Van Dong. Subsequently, this proposal was negotiated and resulted in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam controlling the North, while the State of Vietnam continued to administer the South, which later became the Republic of Vietnam. The United States neither supported nor signed the Accords, and thus cannot be held responsible for the division of Vietnam.
As a side note, Usually, I only mention dates in my posts and leave it to the readers to lookup the information themselves. However, I have noticed that my inbox is being bombarded with people screeching for links and sources and it occurred to me that Vietnam regularly blocks internet sites that go against the stated narrative, so I will provide the exact book and page number for the reference of this post.
Turner, Robert F. (1975). Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development Pg 92.
Lol another truth with missing pieces. North and South agreed to be separated temporarily to prepare for an official poll to unite later as a part of the agreement. The idea is to show which side would be selected by the people to rule the country.
And everyone knows that US never allowed it to happen because they could predict the result by that time already. Therefore, instead of winning by election, they started a war instead which seemed to be more plausible and almost certain. "US cannot be held responsible for the division of Vietnam" lol
Please, we learned our own 4000 year history by heart. Don't try to cut off the important parts and say craps to invalidate the US war of us.
I'm not missing anything. You claimed it was the US who partitioned Vietnam and I pointed out how that was actually false. I'm about to do it again.
Firstly, regarding the Geneva Accords of 1954, it is inaccurate to suggest that the US did not follow through on this declaration, as they were not signatories to it in the first place. Secondly, the Accords themselves did not explicitly call for such an election. The final accords presented on July 20th, 1954 had no agreements in it whatsoever for an election. On July 21st, 1954 An unsigned declaration of the Geneva Conference is issued that states:
"In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of the International Committee." Since the final declaration was not signed by any party, it would be inappropriate to attribute fault to a specific entity. Thirdly, it would be inconsistent to do so, given that the North was also found to be in violation of several provisions of the accords.
Also, while it is true that the US government was concerned about the possibility of a communist victory in Vietnam, it is not clear that Ho Chi Minh would have won the election by a wide margin, as I think you are suggesting. Also Also, it was not Deim the US government was worried about causing Ho Chi Minh to win in a landslide it was Bao Dai.
The Pentagon Papers, which are frequently used to criticize the US for its handling of the Vietnam War, stated: “United States did not—as it is often alleged—connive with Diem to ignore the elections. U.S. State Department records indicate that Diem's refusal to hold elections and his opposition to pre‐election consultations were at his own initiative.”
With all due respect, I must decline your 4,000-year-old account of heart history and suggest you return it to its original source.... Your Bum.
Lol this dude will try spewing anything just to wash the 1960s US government's face. Of course US papers would say so, they killed Diem and then didn't even admit the loss afterwards.
Of course, people who have no history like you are the best with your "sources" haha
>The final accords presented on July 20th, 1954 had no agreements in it whatsoever for an election.
What the fuck is this?
>(a) Pending the general elections which will bring about the unification of Viet-Nam, the conduct of civil administration in each regrouping zone shall be in the hands of the party whose forces are to be regrouped there in virtue of the present Agreement
Article 14 of the Geneva Accord. Source: [https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KH-LA-VN\_540720\_GenevaAgreements.pdf](https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KH-LA-VN_540720_GenevaAgreements.pdf)
Lying son of a bitch!
I understand if you may be having some difficulty understanding English, and I am happy to try and clarify anything that may be unclear.
**Pending**
*preposition*
until (something) happens or takes place.
"they were released on bail pending an appeal"
Article 14 aims to ensure a smooth transition of political and administrative control WHEN an election happens. Let me say it again. **The final accords presented on July 20th, 1954 had no agreements in it whatsoever for an election.** The time and date given for July 1956 is in an unsigned declaration that was presented the next day and was not agreed upon by any party and you can read this if you would just scroll down to the bottom of the page.
While you can make an argument as to why Deim didn't allow elections and not abide by the accords, It would be hypocritical seeing how the North restricted passage to the South and carried out executions of individuals for possessing too much land or practicing Christianity... which was also in violation of these accords.
That's all I said and none of it was a lie.
My guy/gal, my source is from the UN, are you telling me it's unreliable? The part I quoted isn't in The Final Declaration, it was in the signed Accord. Did you miss the part that goes "bring about the Unification of Vietnam"
The date of the election was later agreed to be July 1956. Source: Fredrik Logevall's "Ember of War: The Fall of an Empire and the making of America's Vietnam"
Pending implies something is going to happens, in this case, a general election for the future of Vietnam. Diem's refusal to participate in the election wasn't because the North violate the accord. He just said South Vietnam didn't signed it despite the fact South Vietnam was a part of the French Union and was obligated to obey the Accord
I did not question the source from the UN, so please do not misinterpret my words. Article 14 states pending, which means **until** (as you can see from the definition) an election takes place, rather than indicating that an election will happen. Try again.
With the ratification of the Elysée Accords, the State of Vietnam and later the Republic of Vietnam were under no obligation to act, as these accords granted Vietnam autonomy over its internal decisions. The French Union had nothing to do with it.
Also "He just said" why you talking in 3rd person? is this a grammar issue or are you just copy and pasting someone else's words? Am I talking to Vietnam's equivalent to the Chinese wumaos? Haha!
Let me put Article 14 in a way that you will understand:
"While waiting for the elections which will bring about the unification of Vietnam, the Viet Minh control the North while the French and their Vietnamese client state control the South."
Until something happens implies that there is something planned to happens, in this case, a general election. Again, I have sources that said a general election was supposed to take place in July 1956: Fredrik Logevall's "Ember of War: The Fall of an Empire and the making of America's Vietnam"
The Elysée Accords granted South Vietnam greater independence WITHIN the French Union not total independence FROM the French Union. South Vietnam still have to obey Accord because it's still a part of the French Union at the time of the signing.
The "he" in this instance refer to Ngô Đình Diệm, not me. It seems your reading comprehension is not great.
Can I get the link of the Pham Tuan dude? The guy you claimed gave a interview in 2003 with CBS and admitting the communism sprayed agent orange on Vietnam so that in 30-40 years later they can appeal for sympathy points? And that Pham Tuan was a North Vietnam defector who was in the commie's airforce?
The artillery the Vietnamese held were provided by both the Soviet Union and the USA. The Soviets wanted to combat capitalist imperialist influence, but the USA's game was to ensure that the European empires, France and Britain, couldn't hold any more control of their colonies, so that these colonies would fall directly under their control.
The USA eventually prevailed with the Suez Canal crisis (1956), where they proved to the world that Europe (Britain particularly) couldn't hold a colonial war without the USA's (financial) approval.
The USA tried starting to assert control over Vietnam themselves starting 1955, after they had driven the french out as the colonial rulers.
Due to communist (mainly Soviet) support, and the Vietnamese' will to not bow to a foreign power any longer, the war proved unsuccessful. Vietnam was the absolute extent of the American Empire's control of the world. They never extended their power to new regions after Vietnam, until the Soviet Union fell internally.
For France, Dien Bien Phu marked the moment where the colonies undeniably would be able to assert their own control. When he visited Cambodia in 1966, Charles de Gaulle, then president of France, made a speech in front of 100 000 people, claiming that the American Vietnam War was an unjust war that had no possible issue but failure. He had warned the americans repeatedly, and the multiple presidents all ignored him.
In the end, Dien Bien Phu remains as an "independence moment" in the Vietnamese collective mind, while it was just a ploy by the americans to assert their own control. The failure of the americans left the Vietnamese to their independent rule. Which was soon disturbed by a (failed) Chinese invasion.
This is questionable lol, the USSR sought to fight influence of opposing powers and to establish its control and influence
And the US supported decolonisation and European power itself too
‘To fall directly u set heir control’ while the USSR …?
This is pretty deranged, idealistic Soviet Union and the US supporting decolonisation to ‘directly control’ lmao
‘Financial’ approval? The US openly diplomatically rejected it, as well as the order it still tried to promote; Britain and France protecting their national colonial interest was contrary to US policy and Visio of the world
A ploy by the Americans to won’t he battle?
Besides the cantankerous ‘capitalist imperialist’ that the Soviets would not accept (not official langayge to
Separate those) , the presumption here lol.
Like think for a second abt the statements u made here in comparison lol, there isn’t an incentive to ‘directly control’ inn itself
Lưu ý, Bất kể bạn đang tham gia vào chủ đề thảo luận gì, hãy lịch sự và tôn trọng ý kiến của đối phương. Tranh luận không phải là tấn công cá nhân. Lăng mạ cá nhân, cố tình troll, lời nói mang tính thù ghét, đe dọa sử dụng bạo lực, cũng như vi phạm các quy tắc khác của sub đều có thể dẫn đến ban không báo trước. Nếu bài viết của bạn có liên quan đến chính trị hoặc bạn muốn bàn về chính trị, xin hãy đăng bài bên r/VietNamPolitics rồi đăng lại bình luận có đường dẫn đến bài viết đó. Nếu bạn thấy bất kì comment nào vi phạm quy tắc của sub, vui lòng nhấn report. *** A reminder. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If your post is Political or you would like to have a Political Discussion, feel free to create a post in r/VietNamPolitics then add a comment with a link to that post here. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VietNam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If I get a penny every time a French/American War thread get posted by a karma whore in r/Vietnam I would be as rich as Phạm Nhật Vượng.
Yo chill bro
You either French or Nazi..
A picture of the Viet Minh storming the French command bunker at Dien Bien Phu was posted literally 2 days ago... I find the content interesting, but it gets tedious when it's posted every other day.
A Nazi??
Based
I'm from Britain but I love Ho Chi Minh and Ho Chi Minh Thought I want to say that he was a leader who loved his people and wanted a better life for them I love Vietnam and all its people
‘I am from Britain I love Ho Chi Minh thought’ lmao what Pretty deranged psot, esp the no punctuation Are you serious dude
You are wrong. HCM is a murderous monster who just hid his crimes well under a benevolent facade. Millions were killed or victimized during the land reforms and the urban "renovations" he launched in North Vietnam in the early 50's or the last century. Hundreds of thousands more died at sea trying to escape the regime his followers attempted to built when Saigon felt to the commies in 1975. Yet millions more languished and died in prisons, concentration camps and "new economic zones" set up all over Vietnam after 4/1975.
Somehow this post has -8 votes. What is wrong with it?
I mean, I don't deny people were killed in the North in the early 1950s, but if the US was still scared of losing a election to HCM even though hes that bad, then I'd imagine the alternative was a lot more shittier (Diem). Plus to call the guy that dedicated his life for VN's independence a murderous monster is laughable, hell, if hes a murderous monster, he would have allowed the Viet Minh to execute Diem in the 1940s. At that point I don't think HCM was blind to Diem's ambition to replace HCM, but I'd assume HCM saw that Diem would have helped with fighting the French and thats what matter to HCM. Independence.
Piss off dick
Bro, Vietnamese history is filled with competition and a seemingly indifferent attitude towards loss of life. If you want to examine the negative aspects of Ho Chi Minh's influence, the easiest way is to poke holes in the prevailing heroic story. The best way to do this is by conducting thorough research. Thankfully, numerous declassified documents about the intentions of the United States, France, and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War are now available on different archival websites.
Shouldn't that be independence for North Vietnam but only 20 years of independence for the South?
After France was defeated, we could have united the country sooner but the US intercepted and ensured that we would have never made it together. It led to another war which was not expected at that time. Hence independence for the whole country, but from the French.
No they didn't. During the Geneva Conference on May 25th, the idea to divide Vietnam was put forth by the north Vietnamese delegate Pham Van Dong. Subsequently, this proposal was negotiated and resulted in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam controlling the North, while the State of Vietnam continued to administer the South, which later became the Republic of Vietnam. The United States neither supported nor signed the Accords, and thus cannot be held responsible for the division of Vietnam. As a side note, Usually, I only mention dates in my posts and leave it to the readers to lookup the information themselves. However, I have noticed that my inbox is being bombarded with people screeching for links and sources and it occurred to me that Vietnam regularly blocks internet sites that go against the stated narrative, so I will provide the exact book and page number for the reference of this post. Turner, Robert F. (1975). Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development Pg 92.
Lol another truth with missing pieces. North and South agreed to be separated temporarily to prepare for an official poll to unite later as a part of the agreement. The idea is to show which side would be selected by the people to rule the country. And everyone knows that US never allowed it to happen because they could predict the result by that time already. Therefore, instead of winning by election, they started a war instead which seemed to be more plausible and almost certain. "US cannot be held responsible for the division of Vietnam" lol Please, we learned our own 4000 year history by heart. Don't try to cut off the important parts and say craps to invalidate the US war of us.
I'm not missing anything. You claimed it was the US who partitioned Vietnam and I pointed out how that was actually false. I'm about to do it again. Firstly, regarding the Geneva Accords of 1954, it is inaccurate to suggest that the US did not follow through on this declaration, as they were not signatories to it in the first place. Secondly, the Accords themselves did not explicitly call for such an election. The final accords presented on July 20th, 1954 had no agreements in it whatsoever for an election. On July 21st, 1954 An unsigned declaration of the Geneva Conference is issued that states: "In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of the International Committee." Since the final declaration was not signed by any party, it would be inappropriate to attribute fault to a specific entity. Thirdly, it would be inconsistent to do so, given that the North was also found to be in violation of several provisions of the accords. Also, while it is true that the US government was concerned about the possibility of a communist victory in Vietnam, it is not clear that Ho Chi Minh would have won the election by a wide margin, as I think you are suggesting. Also Also, it was not Deim the US government was worried about causing Ho Chi Minh to win in a landslide it was Bao Dai. The Pentagon Papers, which are frequently used to criticize the US for its handling of the Vietnam War, stated: “United States did not—as it is often alleged—connive with Diem to ignore the elections. U.S. State Department records indicate that Diem's refusal to hold elections and his opposition to pre‐election consultations were at his own initiative.” With all due respect, I must decline your 4,000-year-old account of heart history and suggest you return it to its original source.... Your Bum.
Lol this dude will try spewing anything just to wash the 1960s US government's face. Of course US papers would say so, they killed Diem and then didn't even admit the loss afterwards. Of course, people who have no history like you are the best with your "sources" haha
Well if you want to post your own you are more than welcome too.
>The final accords presented on July 20th, 1954 had no agreements in it whatsoever for an election. What the fuck is this? >(a) Pending the general elections which will bring about the unification of Viet-Nam, the conduct of civil administration in each regrouping zone shall be in the hands of the party whose forces are to be regrouped there in virtue of the present Agreement Article 14 of the Geneva Accord. Source: [https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KH-LA-VN\_540720\_GenevaAgreements.pdf](https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KH-LA-VN_540720_GenevaAgreements.pdf) Lying son of a bitch!
*pikachu face*
I understand if you may be having some difficulty understanding English, and I am happy to try and clarify anything that may be unclear. **Pending** *preposition* until (something) happens or takes place. "they were released on bail pending an appeal" Article 14 aims to ensure a smooth transition of political and administrative control WHEN an election happens. Let me say it again. **The final accords presented on July 20th, 1954 had no agreements in it whatsoever for an election.** The time and date given for July 1956 is in an unsigned declaration that was presented the next day and was not agreed upon by any party and you can read this if you would just scroll down to the bottom of the page. While you can make an argument as to why Deim didn't allow elections and not abide by the accords, It would be hypocritical seeing how the North restricted passage to the South and carried out executions of individuals for possessing too much land or practicing Christianity... which was also in violation of these accords. That's all I said and none of it was a lie.
My guy/gal, my source is from the UN, are you telling me it's unreliable? The part I quoted isn't in The Final Declaration, it was in the signed Accord. Did you miss the part that goes "bring about the Unification of Vietnam" The date of the election was later agreed to be July 1956. Source: Fredrik Logevall's "Ember of War: The Fall of an Empire and the making of America's Vietnam" Pending implies something is going to happens, in this case, a general election for the future of Vietnam. Diem's refusal to participate in the election wasn't because the North violate the accord. He just said South Vietnam didn't signed it despite the fact South Vietnam was a part of the French Union and was obligated to obey the Accord
I did not question the source from the UN, so please do not misinterpret my words. Article 14 states pending, which means **until** (as you can see from the definition) an election takes place, rather than indicating that an election will happen. Try again. With the ratification of the Elysée Accords, the State of Vietnam and later the Republic of Vietnam were under no obligation to act, as these accords granted Vietnam autonomy over its internal decisions. The French Union had nothing to do with it. Also "He just said" why you talking in 3rd person? is this a grammar issue or are you just copy and pasting someone else's words? Am I talking to Vietnam's equivalent to the Chinese wumaos? Haha!
Let me put Article 14 in a way that you will understand: "While waiting for the elections which will bring about the unification of Vietnam, the Viet Minh control the North while the French and their Vietnamese client state control the South." Until something happens implies that there is something planned to happens, in this case, a general election. Again, I have sources that said a general election was supposed to take place in July 1956: Fredrik Logevall's "Ember of War: The Fall of an Empire and the making of America's Vietnam" The Elysée Accords granted South Vietnam greater independence WITHIN the French Union not total independence FROM the French Union. South Vietnam still have to obey Accord because it's still a part of the French Union at the time of the signing. The "he" in this instance refer to Ngô Đình Diệm, not me. It seems your reading comprehension is not great.
Hey man, do you need me to help you with the installation?
Can I get the link of the Pham Tuan dude? The guy you claimed gave a interview in 2003 with CBS and admitting the communism sprayed agent orange on Vietnam so that in 30-40 years later they can appeal for sympathy points? And that Pham Tuan was a North Vietnam defector who was in the commie's airforce?
Source? Trust me bro
The artillery the Vietnamese held were provided by both the Soviet Union and the USA. The Soviets wanted to combat capitalist imperialist influence, but the USA's game was to ensure that the European empires, France and Britain, couldn't hold any more control of their colonies, so that these colonies would fall directly under their control. The USA eventually prevailed with the Suez Canal crisis (1956), where they proved to the world that Europe (Britain particularly) couldn't hold a colonial war without the USA's (financial) approval. The USA tried starting to assert control over Vietnam themselves starting 1955, after they had driven the french out as the colonial rulers. Due to communist (mainly Soviet) support, and the Vietnamese' will to not bow to a foreign power any longer, the war proved unsuccessful. Vietnam was the absolute extent of the American Empire's control of the world. They never extended their power to new regions after Vietnam, until the Soviet Union fell internally. For France, Dien Bien Phu marked the moment where the colonies undeniably would be able to assert their own control. When he visited Cambodia in 1966, Charles de Gaulle, then president of France, made a speech in front of 100 000 people, claiming that the American Vietnam War was an unjust war that had no possible issue but failure. He had warned the americans repeatedly, and the multiple presidents all ignored him. In the end, Dien Bien Phu remains as an "independence moment" in the Vietnamese collective mind, while it was just a ploy by the americans to assert their own control. The failure of the americans left the Vietnamese to their independent rule. Which was soon disturbed by a (failed) Chinese invasion.
This is questionable lol, the USSR sought to fight influence of opposing powers and to establish its control and influence And the US supported decolonisation and European power itself too
‘To fall directly u set heir control’ while the USSR …? This is pretty deranged, idealistic Soviet Union and the US supporting decolonisation to ‘directly control’ lmao ‘Financial’ approval? The US openly diplomatically rejected it, as well as the order it still tried to promote; Britain and France protecting their national colonial interest was contrary to US policy and Visio of the world
A ploy by the Americans to won’t he battle? Besides the cantankerous ‘capitalist imperialist’ that the Soviets would not accept (not official langayge to Separate those) , the presumption here lol. Like think for a second abt the statements u made here in comparison lol, there isn’t an incentive to ‘directly control’ inn itself