And, going further back...they can kick themselves for backing Ho Chi Minh to take the French out of power in Vietnam back in the late 50s... Originally Posted by saj1000might want to brush up on your history here.
might want to brush up on your history here.This guy knows what he's talking about!
The opposite was true actually. The OSS (precursor to CIA) did in fact support Ho in WWII vs the Japanese but that is about as far as it goes. After the war, the US funded in part the French occupation of VN (as much as 80% after 1950) even as Ho repeatedly sought American support for an independent Vietnam.
Taking into account: Vichy French collusion with the Japanese / German WWII effort, Ho's dislike for the Chinese, Ho's fondness of the United States, and Roosevelt's prior position favoring VN independence (1944); that Truman ignores Ho's repeated dispatches for support becomes one of the most inexplicable foreign policy blunders of all time.
Of course in 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu and dispatched from Vietnam for the second time within 10 years.. Originally Posted by Billy_Saul
might want to brush up on your history here.While I agree with you that the U.S. should have explored more dialogue with Ho after Japan's ouster from Vietnam, you also have to put Truman's actions in context with the time. Ho was an ardent communist, as far back as the 1920's.
The opposite was true actually. The OSS (precursor to CIA) did in fact support Ho in WWII vs the Japanese but that is about as far as it goes. After the war, the US funded in part the French occupation of VN (as much as 80% after 1950) even as Ho repeatedly sought American support for an independent Vietnam.
Taking into account: Vichy French collusion with the Japanese / German WWII effort, Ho's dislike for the Chinese, Ho's fondness of the United States, and Roosevelt's prior position favoring VN independence (1944); that Truman ignores Ho's repeated dispatches for support becomes one of the most inexplicable foreign policy blunders of all time.
Of course in 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu and dispatched from Vietnam for the second time within 10 years.. Originally Posted by Billy_Saul
While I agree with you that the U.S. should have explored more dialogue with Ho after Japan's ouster from Vietnam, you also have to put Truman's actions in context with the time. Ho was an ardent communist, as far back as the 1920's.Ho Chi Minh writing a letter to Woodrow Wilson in 1918 (or the convention of Versailles 1919) would have about the same effect as you or I writing Obama or the UN a letter today. None. Zero. At the time he was unknown. A commoner who worked various odd jobs and globe trotted. So I would consider it inconsequential and probably more legend then substantiated fact.
It could be argued that Woodrow Wilson, whom Ho Chi Minh petitioned for help in removing the French from Indochina following WWI, would have had a better chance in keeping Ho Chi Minh from falling under the spell of communism had he agreed to help Ho Chi Minh at that time. Once Ho was rebuffed at the Versailles peace talks following WWI, he sought help from the Communists who were more open to his vision of an independent Vietnam. By 1944 the dice has long been cast and Truman was well aware of Ho's Communist intentions for Vietnam. Originally Posted by DTorchia
Billy_Saul, I am not taking a side, simply pointing out that the West had a documented fear of Communist expansion around the World. We supported communist partisans against the Germans, against the Japanese etc but that didn't mean that after we had used them to defeat a common enemy that we would support a Communist country. The OSS personnel who worked with Ho against the Japanese were well aware of his Communist views. I've read different accounts of his "renouncing" communism. I believe it's accepted by historians today that Ho was going to play whatever side he needed to in order to secure a free Vietnam. I'm not blaming the man, he wanted his people free and did what he had to in order to make that happen. I have a lot of respect for what the Vietnamese were able to accomplish against the French and later against us. They had a lot of help from Russia and China but that doesn't diminish their effectiveness in utilizing the resources they were given and their ingenuity. I'm currently reading a book by a captured American Special Forces POW in 1963. He states how he saw them turn a hand held cheap fm radio and turn it into being capable of intercepting U.S. Army radio transmissions. In fact, he heard his CO from the reaction/rescue force talking on the helicopter over this cheap store bought FM radio that the Vietnamese had converted. You've got the respect that kind of ingenuity.That the British were strongly pro French on the issue presumably because they were concerned Vietnamese freedom would influence events relating to their own colony's, (specifically India). This no doubt factored in on Truman's decisions significantly.
I still think that by 1944, Truman was already looking at a future Europe divided between the Communists and us and though he didn't necessarily support French colonialism, he preferred it to a Communist Southeast Asia. Originally Posted by DTorchia
That the British were strongly pro French on the issue presumably because they were concerned Vietnamese freedom would influence events relating to their own colony's, (specifically India). This no doubt factored in on Truman's decisions significantly."presumably because they were concerned Vietnamese freedom would influence events relating to their own colony's, (specifically India)."
Anyway, a fascinating slice of history as world powers divided up the world. Originally Posted by Billy_Saul
Ho had dabbled with communism but renounced it in 1945 and didn't fully embrace it again until a 1950 meeting with Stalin and Mao when they agreed to support Vietnamese independence.
The OSS had supported him. Roosevelt had supported him. Truman sat on his hands. 1945-50 was the window. Originally Posted by Billy_Saul