Friday, March 20, 2009
Volume One, Chapter Five
This is directly from the Pentagon Papers, folks. "The U.S. DID NOT (my emphasis) - as is often alleged - connive with Diem to ignore the elections. U.S. State Department records indicate that Diem's refusal to be bound by the Geneva Accords and his opposition to pre-election consultations were at his own initiative."...............................................................Oh, and if you think that John Foster Dulles was the real man behind the curtain here, try a little quote from Dulles himself. "The United States believes, broadly speaking, in the unification of countries which have a historic unity, where the people are akin. We also believe that, if there are conditions of really free elections, there is no serious risk that the Communists would win."...............................................................Youza, huh? Oh, and, yes, it also must be noted that the 80% comment made by Eisenhower (i.e., that Ho Chi Minh would probably win that percentage in an election with Dai) was made in 1954. By 1956, while it still may be true that Ho could have won, it would have been by a considerably closer margin (another fact derived from the Pentagon Papers). And, yes, folks, when you combine that with the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a murderous and repressive thug who ordered the killing of over 50,000 small-scale landlords, failed to provide for basic freedoms of speech, the press, etc., and was bank-rolled primarily by the Soviets, Diem (who himself wasn't a choir boy - let's be honest here) in fact may have been on to something. Just a fleeting thought, me-buckos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes widdle will that first statement trying to cover up Eisenhower's OPEN admission of blocking elections is on page 343 of the Gavel Edition of the Pentagon papers, but it goes on to say the US BACKED Diem whole heartedly and refused to enforce the Geneva accords the ONLY basis of a separate government in the south.
It is an editorialized summation of events, which Eisenhower's statement disproves.
To wit:
At a conference in Geneva in July, Vietnam was divided at the seventeenth parallel, pending possible reunification through free elections. Eisenhower, however, refused to sign the Geneva Peace Accords on account of his “domino theory,” which stated that should Vietnam fall to Soviet control—as would likely happen if elections reunified the country because the communist forces were dominant—all of Asia would soon follow. The CIA [One Col Edward Lansdale] thus helped to install Ngo Dinh Diem as president of South Vietnam and helped him block the elections that would have reunified Vietnam. But Diem’s control was tenuous at best, and in 1960 the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, backed by North Vietnam, formed in opposition to Diem. Eisenhower sent funds and advisers to aid Diem, committing the U.S. to involvement in a potentially volatile situation.
If Ike hadn't helped Deim block those elections with his military and political aid why did he need to write in his memoirs that if in fact the elections had been held, Ho Chi Minh would have gotten 80 percent of the vote?
Unless he was trying to justify why he had refused to sign the Geneva Accords and worked along with the Dulles Brothers to UNDERMINE the accords to set up a separate state in the south created out of whole cloth in direct violation of the stated aims of the accords?
The accords between France and the Viet Minh the only legal binding treaty to end French Colonial power in Vietnam NEVER gave the US any rights or say in Vietnam but the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower just ignored them and set up Diem and created SEATO to cover their ass.
The second statement is taken out of context as usual for you;
Neither the United States Government nor the Government of Viet-Nam is, of course, a party to the Geneva armistice agreements. We did not sign them, and the Government of Viet-Nam did not sign them and, indeed, protested against them. On the other hand, the United States believes, broadly speaking, in the unification of countries which have a historic unity, where the people are akin. We also believe that, if there are conditions of really free elections, there is no serious risk that the Communists would win…
Thus, backed by the U.S., Diem obdurately refused to open talks with the Hanoi government. He continued to maintain that the Government of South Vietnam had not signed the Geneva Agreements and thus was not bound by them.
Full context, a self serving statement by Dulles on why neither the US or Diem had to hold the elections dictated by the Geneva Accords, since neither signed them thus HAD NO RIGHTS in VIETNAM because the accords were the relevant document ruling Vietnam at that time.
In fact Diem's election in the south was as big a sham as any of Saddam's elections were;
A referendum was scheduled for October 23, 1955 to determine the future direction of the south. It was contested by Bảo Đại, the Emperor, advocating the restoration of the monarchy, while Diem ran on a republican platform. The elections were held, with Diem's brother and confidant Ngô Đình Nhu, the leader of the family's Can Lao Party, which supplied Diem's electoral base, organising and supervising the elections. Campaigning for Bảo Đại was prohibited, and the result was rigged, with Bảo Đại supporters attacked by Nhu's workers. Diem's troops guarded the polls, and those who attempted to vote for Bao Dai were assaulted. Observers claimed that the fraud was obvious. Diem recorded 98.2% of the vote, including 605,025 votes in Saigon, where only 450,000 voters were registered. Diem's tally also exceeded the registration numbers in other districts. Three days later, Diem proclaimed the formation of the Republic of Vietnam, naming himself President.
REAL FREE ELECTION there me buckos
This is the guy you are defending by proxie by defending Dulles and Eisenhower will ...... as ruthless and bloodthirsty as you claim Ho was, just he was the one the US backed.
Keep believing the propaganda that was used to kill over 56,000 American service personnel in a war that never should have been fought in the first place, it fits your schizophrenic act here on the tubes.
BTW that same psychotic clinging to propaganda helped create and propagate the war in Iraq in 2002.
BTW will Diem is a real winner;
With the start of the Second World War in the Pacific, he attempted to persuade the invading Japanese forces to declare independence for Vietnam in 1942 but was ignored. He founded a secret political party, the Association for the Restoration of Great Vietnam. When its existence was discovered in the summer of 1944, the French declared Diem to be a subversive and ordered his arrest. He fled to Saigon disguised as a Japanese officer. In 1945, the Japanese offered him the premiership of a puppet regime under Bảo Đại which they organised upon leaving the country. He declined initially, but regretted his decision and attempted to reclaim the offer.
Ho fought the Japanese, Diem collaborated with them which BTW made him an enemy of the US during WW2
Remember, when you combine that with the fact that Deim was a murderous and repressive thug, tortures and killings of "communist suspects" were committed on a daily basis. The death toll was put at around 50,000 with 75,000 imprisonments, and Diem's effort extended beyond communists to anti-communist dissidents and anti-corruption whistleblowers. Diem also failed to provide for basic freedoms of speech, the press, etc., and was bank-rolled primarily by the CIA, Ho (who himself wasn't a choir boy - let's be honest here, but at least he didn't collaborate with the Japanese in WW2, or have his brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Diem Can Lao political party, who was an opium addict and admirer of Adolf Hitler. He modeled the Can Lao secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs running his secret police) in fact may have been on to something. Just a fleeting thought, me-buckos
Like I said, Clif, that 80% comment was made in 1954. By 1956, it would have been much closer. Diem had improved by then (also stated in the Pentagon Papers) and Ho's reign of terror was kicking in big time. Yes, we shouldn't have gotten involved. I've said that over and over. But to lay it ALL on the Eisenhower administration is ludicrous. It was Truman who reversed course in 1950, formulating (along with George Kennan) the containment policy (out of which the domino theory was derived) and sending BILLIONS of dollars to help the French. And it was Kennedy who not only continued the aid to Diem but increased it. He also brought the number of advisors to 13,000 by 1963 and helped Diem create the idiotic policy of Strategic Hamlet. Oh, and let's not forget Johnson and his lies, Nixon and his lies (not that you, Clif, would ever forget Nixon). There's a lot of blame to go around, buddy.
More votes than voters in Saigon. Are you sure you're not talking about Ohio?
But to lay it ALL on the Eisenhower administration is ludicrous.
Eisenhower allowed john Foster Dulles to refuse to sign the Geneva accords, and then VIOLATE that treaty.
Eisenhower allowed Dulles ET Al to install a dictator who fought FOR the Japamnese against both his supposed country French and Allied War effort in WW2, one who was at least blood thirsty as you claimed Ho was.
It was Eisenhower who allowed Dulles to create a country in the south out of whole cloth.
And YES numbnuts I meant Saigon just because that destroys your theory Diem was MUCH better the Ho was, so be it. Diem was not better and in some ways much worse especially to the people he tried to force to accept his iron fisted rule, after helping the Japanese against his own countrymen.
Sorry but YOU are wrong so tried a sad sack shit bird sorry attempt at a stupid joke instead of admitt6ing the truth.
Sorry dumbbell but the Dulles brothers left him little choice if he wanted Vietnam to be free of foreign occupation, since the US was pushing for just that with their HAND PICKED dictator
And they used Col Edward Lansdale to tell Diem what was acceptable, Lansdale was the head CIA agent in vietnam in the 50's and in daily contact with Diem, helping him force the south to accept his dictatorial rule, which YOU ignore by screeching about happening AFTER 1963 when the insurrection in the south was in all over and either the US had to cut it's loses or move in since the South Vietnamese Army had proved it could NOT stop the Viet Cong by itself.
Nice DODGE to keep going AWAY from Eisenhower's time and the FACT he allowed a government to be set up in violation to the accords and using a very crooked politician who stacked the votes in Saigon so he got MORE votes then voters in 1955.
Nice dodge to try to IGNORE real facts like that.
Diem had markedly improved from 1954 to 1956. Ho Chi Minh had not. People in the north were arrested for no reason, brutalized by guards for no reason, and warehoused in metal boxes. It wasn't a "dodge", Clif. By backing a non-Communist regime, you at least have the opportunity for evolution. How did Ho Chi Minh EVER evolve, Clif. He didn't. And what about Kenneddy, Clif? He could have pulled the support for Diem at any time and didn't. He chose instead to increase our advisors to 13,000 and worked with Diem to institute that moronic Strategic Hamlet policy. Like I said, Clif, stopping Communism was the prevailing thought of the time. Ike's policy, if you think about it, was the least intrusive way to try to do it.
"Eisenhower allowed john Foster Dulles to refuse to sign the Geneva accords, and then VIOLATE that treaty."
Sorry Cliffy. If we weren't a signatory to that treaty, then it wasn't binding on us. So we didn't "VIOLATE" anything.
Good point, Voltron. And it was Minh who actually violated the treaty by leaving a lot of his best fighters in the south to ensure instability.
IF we didn't sign the accords we had O legal standing in Vietnam in the first place numbnuts, so the actions of the Dulles Brothers thru the CIA lead by Lansdale was illegal since we had NO LEGAL STANDING since we never signed the accords.
Will, why do you keep arguing 50 year old theories when you have O'Rielly and Olbermann to skewer?
This is all ancient history
Post a Comment