From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Dec 21 2002 - 22:55:41 MST
Michael Dickey, MaxPlumm, interested parties,
This will be my last post to this thread. You're
welcome.
This is in response to a MaxPlumm BBS message
forwarded by Michael Dickey.
In his message MaxPlumm misquotes, misinterprets,
misattributes, and assigns meanings not supported by
the text nor intended by moi. The result is, IMO, a
tangled mess not meeting the minimum standard for
reasoned discourse and just barely capable of being
mistaken as such.
The facts of the events in question are remarkably
complex, so reasonable people could easily experience
confusion about what exactly transpired. But with
MaxPlumm, as with others, I'm convinced I'm dealing
not merely with confusion, but with confusion
irrevocably misguided by the 'rationality sickness' of
fundamentalist anti-communism. Perhaps bad faith as
well.
This series of exchanges has been largely a waste of
time. Old men fighting old battles long past. Hell!,
my side--the right side--prevailed--though at horrific
cost--back when it was the central event of my
generation. Hooray! Having taken my victory lap, it
is now time for me to get on with looking to the
future. If the rallying cry of extropianism is
"Onward!", then the equivalent bleat for this series
of exchanges would be "Backwards, tediously..."
At the end of the post you'll find my response to
MaxPlumm's response to my response to his first post
forwarded from the BBS by Michael Dickey. Oy!
Nevertheless, I was pleased to discover some pieces
missing from my own understanding of those events.
Also, I discovered the best account--detailed,
comprehensive, yet seemingly concise--that I've found
of the events effecting Vietnam between 1940 and 1964.
B.S.N. Murti, Vietnam Divided: The Unfinished
Struggle. London: Asia Publishing House, 1964. vi,
228pp.
Murti was an Indian member of the International
Control Commission, charged with monitoring the
implementation of the Geneva Accords of 1954.
Part of this book--as much as you'll ever need--can be
found at:
http://chss2.montclair.edu/furrg/_vwac99/00000077.htm
Quoting from Chapter I, here are some details about,
among other things, how the north and south became
separated ***the first time***, right after the end
of WW2.
-----------------------
In the meantime, the Big Powers in Europe were
deciding the fate of the Asian countries which were
under Japanese occupation during the war. At the
Potsdam Conference held in July 1945 it had been
decided that the surrender of the Japanese troops in
Indochina south of the 16th Parallel should be
accepted by the Southeast Asia Command under Lord
Mountbatten, and north of the 16th Parallel by the
Chinese troops of Chiang Kai-shek. Accordingly, the
British troops under General Douglas Gracey had
arrived on September 12, 1945, in Saigon.
It is interesting to note that the situation in
Vietnam at this moment was rather delicate. Neither
the British nor the Chinese troops moved into Vietnam
immediately after V-J Day. By the time the Allied
troops arrived in the country the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam had proclaimed its independence and was
demanding that it be recognized. French authority had
been replaced. However, the two occupying armies in
the north and in the south of the 16th Parallel
followed different policies in their dealings with the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
General Gracey refused to recognize the Viet Minh
administration and he released and rearmed the French
who had been interned by the Japanese and helped them
to seize power in Saigon. [General Gracey has placed
on record what actually happened when he arrived in
Saigon on September 13. He said, "I was welcomed on
arrival by Viet Minh, who said 'welcome' and all that
sort of thing. It was a very unpleasant situation and
I promptly kicked them out" (Journal of the Royal
Central Asian Society July-October 1953 p. 213).]
<snip>
North of the 16th Parallel the situation was
different. The Chinese who occupied the area
proclaimed a policy of non-interference in Vietnam's
internal affairs and left the Vietnamese in charge of
the administration. The Chinese were not very
enthusiastic about restoring the French authority in
Vietnam. The reasons for this attitude were many. The
Chinese had a traditional interest in Vietnam and they
wanted to reassert their influence over Tonkin. They
also had a score to settle with the French for their
pre-war penetration of Yunnan province and allowing
Indochina to be converted into a Japanese base against
China. French troops and civilian officials were
refused entry into Tonkin. This made it necessary for
the French to appease the Chinese in order to
eliminate the danger of an armed clash when they
arrived in the North. Even after the Franco-Chinese
treaty of February 28, 1946, by which the Chinese
agreed to withdraw from Tonkin, was signed, they still
insisted on the French entering into an agreement with
Ho Chi Minh before they could bring their troops into
Tonkin.
As a result, the French had to conclude an agreement
with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on March 6,
1946. By this agreement, France recognized the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Tonkin and Annam and
not merely the territory north of the 16th Parallel)
as "a free State with its own Government, parliament,
army and finances, forming part of the Indochinese
Federation of the French Union." The French Government
pledged itself to a referendum to determine whether
Cochin-China should be united with Tonkin and Annam.
------------end of excerpt------------
So what happened was, Ho & company declared Vietnam
independent on 9/2/45, and set up shop in government
offices throughout the whole of the country. The
Brits arrived shortly to occupy the south, booted out
Ho's people, and reinstalled the French. In the North
the Chinese wouldn't let the French back in, unless
and until they recognized Ho's govt, which they
grudgingly did.
At this point you have two separate governments, each
in de facto possession of only half of the recognized
territory of the country, but both asserting a de jure
claim to the whole.
Read the rest of the piece if you're interested in the
whole story.
> Jeff, ...I must
> take issue with a large portion of your argument.
<snip>
> 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. ..."
>
> # I find it fascinating that you, or more
> specifically your source, cut off
> the statement here. In full, it continues
***IT DOES NOT CONTINUE*** as you state. You cite an
entirely different source. Everyone makes mistakes,
but this subject is difficult enough without blunt
misattribution.
> # You have previously stated that the 1946 agreement
> that Ho Chi Minh signed with Jean Sainteny was the
> legally binding force with regard to Vietnam,
Quote me if you wish. And then offer interpretations
of the quote if you wish. But please refrain from
putting words in my mouth. I made no such comment. I
referenced the document to show what was going on at
one moment in time. The document is a document, and
as such is regarded by various persons in a manner of
their choosing. The document had some force and
effect. Exactly what, is subject to interpretation.
You state above, about the document: "the agreement
that you base your assertions upon was never ratified
by the French government..."
It is my impression that ordinarily when a government
gives its representative in a negotiation the power to
make an agreement, then the agreement is binding. At
least to the degree that any government considers
itself bound by any agreement it signs.
> Yet here, you acknowledge the legitimacy of the 1949
> Elysees Agreement between Bao Dai and French
> President Vincent Auriol,
I didn't even mention--much less acknowledge any
legitimacy of--that instrument of recalcitrant
colonialism.
> which established that
> Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina were part of Vietnam
> in addition to acknowledging Bao Dai as
> chief of state.
Huh?! Me, recognize the legitimacy of Bao Dai, a
French puppet?! I never did any such thing.
First, the French recognize and agree to the
independence of Vietnam--and by signing with Ho,
suggest that Ho's govt was at least a legitimate
candidate for that govt--pending a series of
referenda--a country whose territory up till then was
excepted by all as composed of the three regions.
Following this the French try to separate Cochin China
from the recognized territory of Vietnam and make it a
separate entity. Either to salvage something from a
never-desired agreement, or--and this seems more
likely to me--to intentionally quash the agreement.
Ho objects and war ensues.
> I should note this agreement was ratified by the
> French government on March 12, 1949. Given that we
> both apparently agree that Bao Dai was a legitimate
> head of state,
There you go again, presuming to speak for me. We
most certainly do not agree. Bao Dai was the puppet
of a colonial regime. He was a "head of state"
indeed, but neither a "legitimate" head of state nor a
head of a "legitimate" state.
> Additionally, when one reads the text of a letter
> President Auriol sent to Bao Dai shortly thereafter,
> one finds that the President refers specifically to:
>
>
> 1- The reuniting of South Vietnam to the rest of the
> Empire...
<snip>
> Note, clearly, a reference to a South Vietnam in
> 1949. As opposed to 1954,
> when you claim it was dreamed up.
>From Murti, "Vietnam Divided":
"After the March 6th agreement [French recognition, at
Chinese insistance, of the DRV], the story of
Franco-Vietnamese relations rapidly deteriorated and
finally resulted in open hostilities between the two
parties. The Dalat Conference which met on April 18,
1946, to discuss various problems between the
representatives of France and the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam failed on the crucial question of the
status of Cochin-China. The French regarded
Cochin-China as their colony and the Viet Minh
insisted it was an integral part of Vietnam. On June
1, the French authorities announced the setting up of
a provisional government in Cochin-China and
recognized it."
Set up de jure for the first time June 1, 1946. As a
French colonial possession. In March 1949, the
French, having possession of the south, installed--as
in installed their puppet--Bao Dai as head of state to
put a Vietnamese face on their attempt to reconquer
the whole of Vietnam. In 1956--facts, my boy. You
need to cultivate an acquaintance with the
facts--Diem--for the second time--declared a separate
state in the south.
# Again, if there are any errors or lack of facts
here, it is clearly on your side of the discussion.
So you feebly assert, but the documents and the
untortured facts--tell another story.
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 - 17:58:50 MST