tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (01/08/86)
(I thought of titling this "Ho Chi Minh was dogshit", but that would have been too complimentary. Besides.) >> No. We know more than that. We know that Ho Chi Minh was >> already a committed communist and that he betrayed people who >> were stupid or unlucky enough to collaborate with him. >> Those allegedly far-sighted advisors needed glasses badly. >> >> David Hudson > Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter -- knee-jerk > anti-communism. If you had talked to me in elementary school, you would have been justified in calling my anti-communism knee-jerk (even though when I did a bad job in 5th grade role-playing Mao I had him quoting Ben Franklin). Now it would be more correct to call it finger-jerk. > (1) If the heightened state of militarization of Vietnam had not > been necessary, it is likely that a much less centralized brand > of communism would have resulted. It is also highly likely that > the North and South would have been unified in the 1950's if the > US had allowed the scheduled elections to take place then. See below. > How could such a situation POSSIBLY be worse for anybody than a > Vietnam ravaged by war for twenty more years, with consequent > millions of dead and vast economic devastation? Ho should have thought of that. For the living? > (2) A guerrilla war can ONLY be won with the support of the people > of a country...this support was displayed in both North and > South from the 1940's on. In the early stages the support of > the peasantry was achieved thru land redistribution (hence the > progressive nature of the movement, at least in the EARLY STAGES). North Vietnam did not win with guerrilla warfare, but with a conventional army heavily supported from outside, while the U.S. forbade itself to intervene again. Ah, yes. Popular support for the Viet Cong. "Now that we have killed your leaders, support us or we'll kill you too." Also see below. > (3) Someone else brought up the refugee situation before and after the > war. I'll need to look into this, but my guess is that, during > the war, refugees were maintained internal to the country thru > relocation schemes similar to those being used in today's > Guatemala. It wouldn't have done to have had refugees streaming > from the South (besides, would the US have taken them then?). > Another factor would probably be that those against the South > Vietnamese government stayed to fight rather than leave, while > that was not an option for those against the unified communist > government. Anyway, this is something that bears looking into. I know someone who was jailed the first time she tried to escape from resubjugated Vietnam. A decade ago I worked with someone who had recently escaped. Funny how they never mentioned trying to escape before that. But feel free to imagine it never happened that way. Perhaps they were really communist agents, and I was fooled by them, huh? I'm not a mindreader. And they could not have had any courage, not like the noble Viet Cong. .|.. > (4) The fourth point is a question for David. What collaborationists > are you referring to who were betrayed by Ho Chi Minh? Very well. The following information comes from the August-B 1984 issue of the *AIM Report*, put out by Accuracy in Media, Inc. (I've warned about the religious and authoritarian aspects of this group before.) I thought you might also be interested in some of the other things it said.: > We pointed out in the January-B 1984 AIM Report that the PBS > series had wrongly portrayed Ho Chi Minh as a Vietnamese and > patriot who led the fight for independence. As part of that > false portrayal, the PBS series had created the impression > that Ho and his followers were behind an important incicent > in Vietnamese nationalist history, the Yen Bay rebellion of > February 6, 1930. Although the Communists played no role > whatever in this incident, the PBS account of it was > preceded by this comment: "He (Ho) was not in Vietnam, but > his ideas and the Vietnamese he trained were. In 1930, new > rebellions broke out." Then came a description of the Yen > Bay rebellion, followed immediately by this narration: "The > French put down the Yen Bay rebellion in two days and > imprisoned its leaders. But the unrest spread as the > peasants, often led by members of the small Indochinese > Communist Party, demonstrated and seized land in several > provinces." After discussing another revolt in Vinh, a year > later, the narrator said: "Thousands of suspected Communists > were arrested that year, and nearly 100 party leaders > executed. The Indochinese Communist Party was virtually > destroyed." > Vietnamese scholars who knew that the Yen Bay rebellion had > been carried out by a nationalist party, the Vietnam Quoc > Dan Dang (VQDD), whose leaders paid with their lives, > reacted indignantly to this brazen effort to credit it to Ho > and the Communists. > [Description of PBS corrections for second airing.] > [Quote on misportrayal of those Communists as nationalists.] > Dolf Droge, who served on the staff of the National Security > Council during the Vietnam War, [said] that one of the ways > Ho raised money to finance his activities on behalf of the > Communist International (the Comintern) was to betray true > Vietnamese nationalists to the French for money. According > to Droge, here is what Ho did as a Comintern agent assigned > to China: "He invites Vietnamese to study revolution in > China ... As they come to China they deposit two pictures, > one with the registrar in Hong Kong, and the other picture > is reserved. And now the students come to the Whampoa > Military Academy ... When they don't join the Communist > movement, however, mysteriously a photograph that has been > held in reserve is sent to the French security police in > Vietnam as these students now graduated try to return home. > So nationalists don't make it ... He was given his first > political education about fighting against the French by > Phan Boi Chau, the leading nationalist of Vietnam ... and he > said, `Come to China.' And Phan came out of Vietnam and he > went to China, to Shanghai, and Ho lured him to the French > Settlement in Shanghai ... Ho gets him to the right house. > The French own that house. The man walks in, `Hello, I'm > here for dinner.' `You are the dinner.' Phan Boi Chau is > returned home in chains. Ho gets paid off in gold. He uses > the gold to form a party in China, and the protest of the > party in the streets is, `We protest the arrest of Phan Boi > Chau.' Now you're dealing with a pro." [Description of how Ho fooled Patti, whom PBS used as one of those allegedly farsighted advisors, and more PBS crap.] > He didn't want it known that he was the same man as Nguyen > Ai Quoc, the Communist who had betrayed so many nationalists > to the French. Indeed, the communist press had reported in > 1933 that Nguyen Ai Quoc had died in Hong Kong, and he > dropped out of sight completely. It was not until more than > a quarter of a century later that Ho admitted that he and > Nguyen Ai Quoc were one and the same person. > [PBS malportrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem.] > Diem was a well-known nationalist with a reputation for > incorruptibility. He had been minister of interior in 1933 > and had resigned when the French refused to give him greater > autonomy. Ho had tried unsuccessfully to get him to join > his government in 1945. His older brother had been killed > by the communists and Diem himself had been kidnapped. > According to Gen. Edward G. Lansdale, who was in Vietnam > when Diem's appointment was announced, he was exceptionally > well-known to the Vietnamese, some saying that he was better > known than Ho Chi Minh. Most of the Vietnamese with whom > Lansdale talked praised him as a great patriot, "probably > the best known of all the nationalists still living." > [Diem had popular support.] > Dr. Bruce Loebs of Idaho State University charged ... that > the AIM conference that the PBS series had given a very > misleading impression of what the election provision in the > Geneva accords was. The document calling for elections in > two years was not signed by either North or South Vietnam or > by the United States. The United States issued a statement > saying that it would continue to seek the reunification of > divided nations by free elections supervised by the UN, a > position endorsed by South Vietnam. The elections in > Vietnam were supposed to be supervised by the tripartite > International Control Commision made up of representatives > of Poland, India, and Canada. It was very ineffective in > carrying out much simpler tasks entrusted to it. Many > scholars, including the late Prof. Hans Morgenthau, viewed > the election document as nothing more than a face-saving > statement to paper over the *de facto* division of Vietnam. > The PBS series indicated that the failure to carry out the > elections was the fault of Diem and Dulles. No mention was > made of John F. Kennedy's strong 1956 statement in which he > said that neither the United States nor Free Vietnam would > be a party to an election "obviously subverted and stacked > in advance." > [etc.]