From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 19:04:55 MST
Michael Dickey forwarded some remarks in this thread
from MaxPlumm from the bulletin board. Thank you for
the submission Michael.
Let's take a brief look at the points offered by
MaxPlumm.
> I must take some issues with your interpretations of
the 1954 Geneva Accords. For starters, I cannot see
how anyone can rationally argue that the government of
South Vietnam (already recognized by 30 nations and up
for UN membership at the time of the conference)
should
have submitted to an election to unify the country
with the North...<
No, there was no "South" Vietnam. There was only
Vietnam, an "associate state" of the French Union.
The territory of this state was the combined area of
the 'north' and 'south'--the area associated with the
Vietnam of today. The whole country.
A short summary of who, in the period 1945-1954, had
what part of indochina and when--cast of players here:
French, Vichy French, Japanese, Nationalist Chinese,
British, Ho & Co., French again--can be found at:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861793.html
Note the following excerpt:
In Mar., 1946, France signed an agreement with Ho Chi
Minh, recognizing Vietnam as a free state within the
Indochina federation and the French Union. ...
However, differences immediately arose over whether
Cochin China [the southernmost of the three
regions--Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China] was
included in the independent state of Vietnam; in June,
1946, France supported the establishment of a separate
republic of Cochin China.
<snip unnecessary stuff> the French in 1949
reinstalled Bao Dai as the ruler of Vietnam, of which
Cochin China was then recognized to be a part.
-----end of excerpt------
I direct your attention to that last bit: "...Vietnam,
of which Cochin China was then recognized to be a
part." So from 1949 to the onset of the Geneva
Conference, Vietnam was all of Vietnam, the combined
regions of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China.
> when
> one considers that
> population alone would've guaranteed the Communists
> victory. With a
> population of 17 million to the South's 13 million,
> the Communists simply
> could've herded more unwilling participants to the
> voting booth to insure
> victory. Forgive my skepticism regarding the North's
> intentions, but perhaps
> you could provide an example of a fair and honest
> Communist election?
Now the prior error pretty much invalidates everything
that follows--anything premised on separate north and
south prior to the accords--but regarding the
election, you must take note of the fact that
representatives from India, Canada, and Poland made up
the International Control Comission, charged with
carrying out the peace agreement, and woulda, shoulda,
coulda been there to oversee the elections. In
addition there ain't no one on the planet not being
spoon fed in an Alzheimer's ward who doesn't
acknowledge that Ho, as the dominant political
personality and the 'hero' who won independence for
his country, was going to sweep those elections.
Fairly.
> Another problem I have is your contention that the
> United States 'sabotaged'
> the Geneva Accords. Given that the Accords were
> nothing more than a victory
> lap for the Soviet/Chinese proxy communist entity of
> the North,
This is just anti-communist dribble. Ho was an
authentic Vietnamese nationalist and the north was not
'the north' at the time. Whether or not he was
communist, how much, and of what sort, well, it's all
irrelevant. Unless anti-communism self-justifies
anything it does. (Like say, Wahabism.)
> it is not
> surprising that neither the U.S. or South Vietnam
> ratified them.
Again, ain't no South Vietnam at the time.
However, an interesting note. The Geneva Conference
began in May and ended on July 21, 1954. In June, in
the middle of the conference, France declared Vietnam
a completely independent nation, free from the legal
strictures of membership in the French Union. Can you
guess why, boys and girls?
> As I've noted, the Republic of Vietnam was already
> recognized by 30 countries
> and up
> for UN membership,
I'd have to see some documentation. I've seen a lot
already, but nothing about this, except for the Soviet
and Chinese recognition of the Democratic Republic of
Vietnam. I suspect that the writer of this piece
would not view with favor *those* recognitions.
> so that in my mind gives them the
> right to determine
> their own political future.
Again, the North and South don't exist at this point
in time. There is one Vietnam, and free and fair
elections, as provided for in the Accords, are the
internationally accepted norm for determining a
nations "own political future."
> You are strangely
> silent, however, on the
> blatant violations
"Blatant" violations? Absent facts, crank up the
rhetoric. Fine. I can do facts *and* rhetoric
simultaneously.
> of these 'sacrosanct' agreements
> by the North Vietnamese.
> One of the few provisions agreed to by all parties
> in the Geneva Accords was
> the assured neutrality of Cambodia and Laos.
The writer rejected the accords when it suited him,
rejected them based on error. Now he wants to use
them. OK. Let's see what he's got.
> This
> neutrality was respected
> by the United States and South Vietnam, but was
> constantly trampled on by
> the North Vietnamese.
Oh, yeah, riiight. Bombed the livin' shit out of
Laos, so that it's a hell hole of unexploded ordinance
to this day. Concurrently, the CIA overthrows the
govt of Cambodia replacing Sihanouk with Lon Nol,
bombing the living shit out of Cambodia, bringing war
with the Khmer Rouge, and then the Khmer to power.
Yeah, that's respect for their neutrality. The same
way the writer respects the truth. And the same way I
respect the writer. I've heard enough. He's outta
here.
<snip the remaining dribble, go take a shower>
That's it Michael. Thanks again.
Anti-communism tortures the facts till they conform to
dogma. Intellectual (not to mention moral and
political) integrity embraces the facts and constructs
a world view based thereon.
Read the documents.
Best, Jeff Davis
"During times of universal deceit, telling the
truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:44 MST