• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Vietnam a just war?

Was Vietnam a just war?

  • Need more info

    Votes: 2 4.8%

  • Yes, it was just

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • No, it wasn't just

    Votes: 30 71.4%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Lê Duẩn came up with the idea for the Tet Offensive. His plan was for North Vietnamese forces to attack every South Vietnamese military base and every South Vietnamese City. He thought that that would bring about a citizen's uprising and the North Vietnamese would take South Vietnam in one fell swoop.

Ho Chi Mihn was against the Tet Offensive as was North Vietnam's best general but Lê Duẩn wouldn't hear of it. He banished Ho Chi Mihn to China and the General to Bulgaria.

The Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam. Many North Vietnamese soldiers died as did many Viet Cong and for very little gain.

They did gain a little propaganda value from it.
 
swing_voter said:
Lê Duẩn came up with the idea for the Tet Offensive. His plan was for North Vietnamese forces to attack every South Vietnamese military base and every South Vietnamese City. He thought that that would bring about a citizen's uprising and the North Vietnamese would take South Vietnam in one fell swoop.

Ho Chi Mihn was against the Tet Offensive as was North Vietnam's best general but Lê Duẩn wouldn't hear of it. He banished Ho Chi Mihn to China and the General to Bulgaria.

The Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam. Many North Vietnamese soldiers died as did many Viet Cong and for very little gain.

They did gain a little propaganda value from it.
Click to expand...

Tet is fascinating. I was there during it and clearly remember its effects. There's no question that my tour was cut into sections, pre-Tet, Tet, and post-Tet.
 
Cordelier said:
You're just looking at Vietnam in isolation, though. French Indochina encompassed a lot more territory than Vietnam. It also included Laos and Cambodia as well. So when the French withdrew and if we refused to fill the vacuum they left.... then who does fill it in Laos and Cambodia? The way I see it, the major difference between the Old Guard and the Young Turks in Hanoi is that the older generation would have turned a blind eye to what China did in Laos and Cambodia... the younger generation, though, would have allied themselves more closely with the Soviets and would have been more willing to oppose China's efforts in the region. Both generations would have seen Vietnamese nationalism as their primary goal, but each would have championed very different means of achieving it. But if you look at the situation that confronted the 1954 Geneva Conference, that trans-generational split (and the Sino-Soviet split which it reflected) was still 5-10 years in the future. I don't think there's any doubt that if we hadn't picked up where the French left off and attempted to fill the vacuum, that the whole region would have swung into China's sphere of influence.... either tacitly, in the case of a nationalistic Vietnam, or perhaps more explicitly in the case of Laos, and that would have led to intense pressure on Thailand and the Malaysian peninsula to follow suit.
Click to expand...

That kind of bipolar thinking is what led to the failure of American foreign policy in Indochina in the first place. You dont understand China either- they did not exert any influence on the world stage until the 1990s because their economy was nonexistent prior to that. 99% of the weapons the Vietnamese were given were Soviet in nature- China only served as a transit point. The Chinese turned inward and spent decades sorting out their own affairs before they began to look outward, and by then their economy was no longer communist. Even today, Chinese influence is not about communist expansion, but rather theyre just making other countries loyal to them as a nation, not as an economic or political ideology.

You are also failing to understand the nationalistic movements that was happening in that region- communism was used as a tool to usurp the ruling powers, which were either monarchies or dictatorships. Thailand never turned communist because they always maintained their independence. Cambodia was in a precarious state, but they would have certainly maintained their neutrality had they not been affected by what was happening in Vietnam. Laos ended up as communist, but that was because of their geopolitical position, even then it never spread beyond their borders either.
 
PoS said:
That kind of bipolar thinking is what led to the failure of American foreign policy in Indochina in the first place. You dont understand China either- they did not exert any influence on the world stage until the 1990s because their economy was nonexistent prior to that. 99% of the weapons the Vietnamese were given were Soviet in nature- China only served as a transit point. The Chinese turned inward and spent decades sorting out their own affairs before they began to look outward, and by then their economy was no longer communist. Even today, Chinese influence is not about communist expansion, but rather theyre just making other countries loyal to them as a nation, not as an economic or political ideology.

You are also failing to understand the nationalistic movements that was happening in that region- communism was used as a tool to usurp the ruling powers, which were either monarchies or dictatorships. Thailand never turned communist because they always maintained their independence. Cambodia was in a precarious state, but they would have certainly maintained their neutrality had they not been affected by what was happening in Vietnam. Laos ended up as communist, but that was because of their geopolitical position, even then it never spread beyond their borders either.
Click to expand...

We now know that communism will always fail on it's own. In the cold war days, the fear was that Russia would gain enough power to be a real threat. Poor countries like Vietnam have always been a prime target for the communists. Cambodia and Laos are even poorer and have fewer resources than Vietnam, making them prime targets as well.
 
PoS said:
That kind of bipolar thinking is what led to the failure of American foreign policy in Indochina in the first place. You dont understand China either- they did not exert any influence on the world stage until the 1990s because their economy was nonexistent prior to that. 99% of the weapons the Vietnamese were given were Soviet in nature- China only served as a transit point. The Chinese turned inward and spent decades sorting out their own affairs before they began to look outward, and by then their economy was no longer communist. Even today, Chinese influence is not about communist expansion, but rather theyre just making other countries loyal to them as a nation, not as an economic or political ideology.

You are also failing to understand the nationalistic movements that was happening in that region- communism was used as a tool to usurp the ruling powers, which were either monarchies or dictatorships. Thailand never turned communist because they always maintained their independence. Cambodia was in a precarious state, but they would have certainly maintained their neutrality had they not been affected by what was happening in Vietnam. Laos ended up as communist, but that was because of their geopolitical position, even then it never spread beyond their borders either.
Click to expand...

Mostly incorrect.

Laos was in the process of being invaded by what would become North Vietnam even in the early 1950s. The French picked Dien Bien Phu as a place to build a strong point because it sat astride the roads supporting that invasion. The attempted invasion led to a war that ebbed and flowed into the 70s when the country finely fell to the armies of North Vietnam.
At one point there were as many as 30,000 Chinese troops inside Laos and northern Cambodia working in both road construction and serving as crew on anti aircraft weapons protecting the trail.

Saying that 99% of the weapons used by the north were of saviet nature is a false narative because Chinese weapons were themselves of a soviet nature and by in large still are today. Soviet designed equipment is manufactured in China. Both China and the Soviet Union supplied equipment to the north. For example, early fighter aircraft used by the north were MiG-17's provided by China along with pilot training and even air bases inside China to use, similar to the Korean War. MiG-21's were supplied a couple of years later by Russia. Later in the war Chinese manufactured MiG-19's were transfered to North Vietnam.

Politically, the government of North Vietnam often played the sino/soviet split card to their advantage getting first one side or the other to give supplies and support. Part of that split, the Soviet advice to find a path to peace so that the economy of North Vietnam could be better rebuilt vs the Chinese advice pushing for the expansion of communist governments in south east asia would play into Le Duan's elimination of those who wanted to follow the soviet advice.

I'm of the opinion that you are badly downplaying the influence of China on the war, both politically and materially.
 
Last edited:
avatar said:
Mostly incorrect.

Laos was in the process of being invaded by what would become North Vietnam even in the early 1950s. The French picked Dien Bien Phu as a place to build a strong point because it sat astride the roads supporting that invasion. The attempted invasion led to a war that ebbed and flowed into the 70s when the country finely fell to the armies of North Vietnam.
At one point there were as many as 30,000 Chinese troops inside Laos and northern Cambodia working in both road construction and serving as crew on anti aircraft weapons protecting the trail.
Click to expand...
It doesnt contradict what I said. As Ive stated before Laos would eventually go communist, but the ideology didnt go past their borders, except amongst the Vietnamese along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Saying that 99% of the weapons used by the north were of saviet nature is a false narative because Chinese weapons were themselves of a soviet nature and by in large still are today. Soviet designed equipment is manufactured in China.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Back then, China had very little manufacturing capabilities. The weapons used by the North were mostly manufactured in the USSR.

For example, early fighter aircraft used by the north were MiG-17's provided by China along with pilot training and even air bases inside China to use, similar to the Korean War. MiG-21's were supplied a couple of years later by Russia. Later in the war Chinese manufactured MiG-19's were transfered to North Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, the Chinese may have given them some training, but mostly it was due to Soviet training and all aircraft were given by the USSR.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 - Wikipedia

"By 1962 the first North Vietnamese pilots had finished their MiG-17 courses in the Soviet Union and the PRC, and returned to their units; to mark the occasion, the Soviets sent as a "gift" 36 MiG-17 fighters and MiG-15UTI trainers to Hanoi in February 1964. These airmen would create North Vietnam's first jet fighter regiment, the 921st."

Chinese made MIG-19s never numbered more than 50+, nowhere near as significant in number as Soviet MIG-21s or MIG-17s.

I'm of the opinion that you are badly downplaying the influence of China on the war, both politically and materially.
Click to expand...

I never said that China didnt have an influence on the war. They sure did, but the Chinese did not expand their sphere of influence across the world like the Soviets did, or even Cuba.
 
PoS said:
It doesnt contradict what I said. As Ive stated before Laos would eventually go communist, but the ideology didnt go past their borders, except amongst the Vietnamese along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


Wrong. Back then, China had very little manufacturing capabilities. The weapons used by the North were mostly manufactured in the USSR.



Wrong again, the Chinese may have given them some training, but mostly it was due to Soviet training and all aircraft were given by the USSR.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 - Wikipedia

"By 1962 the first North Vietnamese pilots had finished their MiG-17 courses in the Soviet Union and the PRC, and returned to their units; to mark the occasion, the Soviets sent as a "gift" 36 MiG-17 fighters and MiG-15UTI trainers to Hanoi in February 1964. These airmen would create North Vietnam's first jet fighter regiment, the 921st."

Chinese made MIG-19s never numbered more than 50+, nowhere near as significant in number as Soviet MIG-21s or MIG-17s.



I never said that China didnt have an influence on the war. They sure did, but the Chinese did not expand their sphere of influence across the world like the Soviets did, or even Cuba.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Cutting and pasting selected sentences from wiki is not fact finding. It's using google to find snips of information to substantiate your position withou real knowledge.

Here are the surrounding words along with yours.

n 1960, the first group of approximately 50 North Vietnamese airmen were transferred to the PRC to begin transitional training onto the MiG-17. By this time the first detachment of Chinese trained MiG-15 pilots had returned to North Vietnam, and a group of 31 airmen were deployed to the Vietnam People's Air Force (VPAF) base at Son Dong for conversion to the MiG-17. By 1962 the first North Vietnamese pilots had finished their MiG-17 courses in the Soviet Union and the PRC, and returned to their units; to mark the occasion, the Soviets sent as a "gift" 36 MiG-17 fighters and MiG-15UTI trainers to Hanoi in February 1964.

And even in that same wiki article you can find this

In the People's Republic of China (PRC), an initial MiG-17F was assembled from parts in 1956, with license production following in 1957 at Shenyang. The Chinese-built version is known as the Shenyang J-5 (for local use) or F-5 (for export). Similarly the MiG-17PF was manufactured there as the J-5A (F-5A for export). Altogether 767 of these single-seater variants were built.

The concept that the Chinese lacked the industrial capacity is completely wrong.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
That kind of bipolar thinking is what led to the failure of American foreign policy in Indochina in the first place. You dont understand China either- they did not exert any influence on the world stage until the 1990s because their economy was nonexistent prior to that. 99% of the weapons the Vietnamese were given were Soviet in nature- China only served as a transit point. The Chinese turned inward and spent decades sorting out their own affairs before they began to look outward, and by then their economy was no longer communist. Even today, Chinese influence is not about communist expansion, but rather theyre just making other countries loyal to them as a nation, not as an economic or political ideology.

You are also failing to understand the nationalistic movements that was happening in that region- communism was used as a tool to usurp the ruling powers, which were either monarchies or dictatorships. Thailand never turned communist because they always maintained their independence. Cambodia was in a precarious state, but they would have certainly maintained their neutrality had they not been affected by what was happening in Vietnam. Laos ended up as communist, but that was because of their geopolitical position, even then it never spread beyond their borders either.
Click to expand...

By my reckoning, Mao's intervention in the Korean War barely a year after coming to undisputed power spoke volumes about his influence on the Asian stage. In 1954, Korea was over... Stalin was recently deceased, and Mao was very anxious to step into his shoes that preeminent leader of the Communist bloc. Look at how many times Mao attacked Khrushchev for being too conciliatory to the West. Hell, one of the main driving causes of the Sino-Soviet split is that the Soviets wanted better relations with the West and Mao pushed a more hardline, aggressive, and confrontational approach. The French withdrawal left a gaping vacuum in Southeast Asia. If the US didn't act to fill it, I think it's beyond doubt that China would have.... they may not have been as blatant as they were in Tibet - they might have utilized the cover of nationalist movements - but they would have kept probing with their bayonets until they hit steel. China was reaching out to Sukarno in Indonesia. They were encouraging unrest in Northern Thailand, and they were active supporters of the Viet Minh. If you think Maoist China was just going to navel-gaze in their own yard while the neighborhood changed around them, I think you seriously underestimate what the actual situation was.
 
This does little to ad to the op other than to present another viewpoint that was common at the time and guiding our leaders decisions. It's just something I encountered on the internet. It is not researched any further than that.

You may find it interesting however. Sorry, it's 15 pages long.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000811678.pdf

Most of it came true.
 
In February 1966, Kennan testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the request of the committee's chairman, Senator J. William Fulbright, where he stated that the "preoccupation" with Vietnam was undermining U.S. global leadership.[106] He accused the administration of Lyndon Johnson of distorting his policies into a purely military approach.[107] President Johnson was so annoyed by the hearings called by his friend-turned-foe Fulbright that he tried to upstage them by holding a sudden and unannounced summit in Honolulu starting on 5 February 1966 with Chief of State Nguyễn Văn Thiệu and Prime Minister Nguyễn Cao Kỳ of South Vietnam, where he declared that the United States was making excellent progress in Vietnam and was committed to social and economic reforms.

Kennan testified that were not the United States not already fighting in Vietnam that: "I would know of no reason why we should wish to become so involved, and I could think of several reasons why we should wish not to".[108] He was opposed to an immediate pull-out from Vietnam, saying "A precipitate and disorderly withdrawal could represent in present circumstances a disservice to our own interests, and even to world peace", but added that he felt "there is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant and unpromising objectives." In his testimony, Kennan argued that Ho Chi Minh was "not Hitler" and everything he had read about him suggested that Ho was a Communist, but also a Vietnamese nationalist who did not want his country to be subservient to either the Soviet Union or China.[109] He further testified that to defeat North Vietnam would mean a cost in human life "for which I would not like to see this country be responsible for". Kennan compared the Johnson administration's policy towards Vietnam as being like that of "an elephant frightened by a mouse".

Kennan ended his testimony by quoting a remark made by John Quincy Adams "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own"." Kennan then stated: "Now, gentlemen, I don't know exactly what John Quincy Adams had in mind when he spoke those words. But I think that, without knowing it, he spoke very directly and very pertinently to us here today." As the hearings were aired live on television (at the time a rare occurrence) and Kennan's reputation as the "Father of Containment" ensured that his testimony attracted much media attention

George F. Kennan - Wikipedia


George_F._Kennan was highly respected. He was the guy who started the whole "contain the Soviets" thing. He said that it didn't matter if we lost a little country here and there.
 
swing_voter said:
In February 1966, Kennan testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the request of the committee's chairman, Senator J. William Fulbright, where he stated that the "preoccupation" with Vietnam was undermining U.S. global leadership.[106] He accused the administration of Lyndon Johnson of distorting his policies into a purely military approach.[107] President Johnson was so annoyed by the hearings called by his friend-turned-foe Fulbright that he tried to upstage them by holding a sudden and unannounced summit in Honolulu starting on 5 February 1966 with Chief of State Nguyễn Văn Thiệu and Prime Minister Nguyễn Cao Kỳ of South Vietnam, where he declared that the United States was making excellent progress in Vietnam and was committed to social and economic reforms.

Kennan testified that were not the United States not already fighting in Vietnam that: "I would know of no reason why we should wish to become so involved, and I could think of several reasons why we should wish not to".[108] He was opposed to an immediate pull-out from Vietnam, saying "A precipitate and disorderly withdrawal could represent in present circumstances a disservice to our own interests, and even to world peace", but added that he felt "there is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant and unpromising objectives." In his testimony, Kennan argued that Ho Chi Minh was "not Hitler" and everything he had read about him suggested that Ho was a Communist, but also a Vietnamese nationalist who did not want his country to be subservient to either the Soviet Union or China.[109] He further testified that to defeat North Vietnam would mean a cost in human life "for which I would not like to see this country be responsible for". Kennan compared the Johnson administration's policy towards Vietnam as being like that of "an elephant frightened by a mouse".

Kennan ended his testimony by quoting a remark made by John Quincy Adams "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own"." Kennan then stated: "Now, gentlemen, I don't know exactly what John Quincy Adams had in mind when he spoke those words. But I think that, without knowing it, he spoke very directly and very pertinently to us here today." As the hearings were aired live on television (at the time a rare occurrence) and Kennan's reputation as the "Father of Containment" ensured that his testimony attracted much media attention

George F. Kennan - Wikipedia


George_F._Kennan was highly respected. He was the guy who started the whole "contain the Soviets" thing. He said that it didn't matter if we lost a little country here and there.
Click to expand...

Swing - I think President Johnson was about the last person who wanted to be involved in a war in Vietnam. When the Fulbright Hearings were going on, we were just coming off a 37 day bombing pause to try to get the North Vietnamese to come to the peace table. His Administration tried to follow every peace feeler they could to get talks started. When I read about Kennan's testimony, I can't help but think it's just a form of academic masturbation. He doesn't want a hasty unilateral withdrawal, but he is in favor of a "courageous liquidation of unsound positions". What exactly does that mean on the ground? And how exactly was President Johnson supposed to find such a middle ground if the other side wasn't willing to sit down and negotiate?
 
Cordelier said:
Swing - I think President Johnson was about the last person who wanted to be involved in a war in Vietnam. When the Fulbright Hearings were going on, we were just coming off a 37 day bombing pause to try to get the North Vietnamese to come to the peace table. His Administration tried to follow every peace feeler they could to get talks started. When I read about Kennan's testimony, I can't help but think it's just a form of academic masturbation. He doesn't want a hasty unilateral withdrawal, but he is in favor of a "courageous liquidation of unsound positions". What exactly does that mean on the ground? And how exactly was President Johnson supposed to find such a middle ground if the other side wasn't willing to sit down and negotiate?
Click to expand...




I got the feeling that if Kennan felt it didn't matter if we "lost a little country here and there", he should've spelled that out earlier.
 
swing_voter said:
I got the feeling that if Kennan felt it didn't matter if we "lost a little country here and there", he should've spelled that out earlier.
Click to expand...

I don't know... maybe he did and nobody was listening. Maybe it just didn't matter, because Vietnam couldn't be viewed in isolation.
 
avatar said:
Sigh. Cutting and pasting selected sentences from wiki is not fact finding. It's using google to find snips of information to substantiate your position withou real knowledge.
Click to expand...
As opposed to just talking out of your butt like what you do? Ive been to China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia and know their histories. What about you?

The concept that the Chinese lacked the industrial capacity is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I never said they didnt have industrial capability. I said their material contribution to the Vietnam War wasnt that great, not as much as the USSR.

Again youre just completely misunderstanding what Ive said. Cordelier made a claim that if America didnt get involved in Vietnam, the Chinese would have dominated the region. I gave him facts as to why it wouldnt be so. You zeroed in on one little aspect of that argument and ran away with it. Pay attention next time.

Cordelier said:
By my reckoning, Mao's intervention in the Korean War barely a year after coming to undisputed power spoke volumes about his influence on the Asian stage. In 1954, Korea was over... Stalin was recently deceased, and Mao was very anxious to step into his shoes that preeminent leader of the Communist bloc. Look at how many times Mao attacked Khrushchev for being too conciliatory to the West. Hell, one of the main driving causes of the Sino-Soviet split is that the Soviets wanted better relations with the West and Mao pushed a more hardline, aggressive, and confrontational approach. The French withdrawal left a gaping vacuum in Southeast Asia. If the US didn't act to fill it, I think it's beyond doubt that China would have.... they may not have been as blatant as they were in Tibet - they might have utilized the cover of nationalist movements - but they would have kept probing with their bayonets until they hit steel. China was reaching out to Sukarno in Indonesia. They were encouraging unrest in Northern Thailand, and they were active supporters of the Viet Minh. If you think Maoist China was just going to navel-gaze in their own yard while the neighborhood changed around them, I think you seriously underestimate what the actual situation was.
Click to expand...

The Chinese intervened in Korea because they felt directly threatened by the US, but they didnt advance any further when we retreated back to the South Korean border, so your theory is wrong. The Chinese interventions in the past have only been to areas where they have felt were once part of China.

Like I said, if we had supported Vietnam, they would have stood as a shield against China- no way would they allow the Chinese to encroach in Indochina, which is what happened anyway when they intervened in Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge.
 
Yes I've been there. Part of my family is Malaysian and Chinese.

The words were directly from your snip and quote and surrounded the very sentences you chose to use.

Good by. Thanks for all the fish.
 
PoS said:
The Chinese interventions in the past have only been to areas where they have felt were once part of China.
Click to expand...

True, but they feel that a lot and I am getting the impression that they are feeling that more and more every day.

Joey
 
During the Vietnam War, the Chinese sent 300,000 soldiers to North Vietnam to free up North Vietnamese soldiers so that the could fight the South and the Americans.


After Vietnam was united, the Soviets pressed the Vietnamese to expand into Laos and Cambodia. This pissed China off. Laos and Cambodia where in the Chinese sphere of influence, so China invaded Vietnam. This was the Sino-Vietnamese War.

CHINESE
Chinese claim: 200,000 PLA with 400–550 tanks[5][6]
Vietnamese claim: 600,000 PLA infantry and 400 tanks from Kunming and Guangzhou Military Districts[7]

versus

VIETNAME
70,000–100,000 Vietnamese regulars + 150,000 local troops and militia[8]


CHINESE DEAD
Chinese estimate: 6,954 killed
14,800–21,000 wounded
238 captured[6][9][10]
Vietnamese estimate: 62,000 casualties, including 48,000 deaths.[11][12][13][14]
420 Tanks/APCs destroyed[15]
66 heavy mortars and guns destroyed[15]
Western estimate: 26,000 killed, 37,000 wounded[16]

VIETNAMESE DEAD
Chinese estimate: 42,000[12]–57,000 soldiers killed and 70,000 militia killed.[9][17]
1,636 captured[13][14]
185 Tanks/APCs destroyed[15]
200 heavy mortars and guns destroyed[15]
6 missile launchers destroyed[15]
Western estimate: 50,000-80,000 killed, 32,000 wounded[16]
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
The Chinese intervened in Korea because they felt directly threatened by the US, but they didnt advance any further when we retreated back to the South Korean border, so your theory is wrong. The Chinese interventions in the past have only been to areas where they have felt were once part of China.

Like I said, if we had supported Vietnam, they would have stood as a shield against China- no way would they allow the Chinese to encroach in Indochina, which is what happened anyway when they intervened in Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that if we had decided to withdraw from the Korean Peninsula after Chosin that the Chinese wouldn't have advanced to Pusan?!? I suggest that the front line settled roughly along the 38th Parallel because that's where we chose to draw it.... if had chosen to make our stand at the 36th Parallel or at any other point or even not at all, don't you think the Chinese would have responded in kind?

I'd also note that Korea was never a part of China, and yet they still intervened there, so your assertion there is invalidated on it's face.

We weren't going to support a Vietnam led by Ho Chi Minh. It's ludicrous to even think that was going to be a remote possibility in 1950's America. If we didn't feel we could support Tito when he was asserting Yugoslav independence from the Soviets, we sure as hell weren't going to support Ho Chi Minh. The only real choices left to us were to step into the vacuum left by the French and try to establish non-Communist Governments in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia... or to totally withdraw from the region and let Ho Chi Minh unite Vietnam while pro-China Governments came to power in Laos and Cambodia.

Finally, the decision of whether Vietnam allied itself with China or the Soviet Union in the wake of the Sino-Soviet split was always going to be decided on generational lines. The Old Guard types like Ho Chi Minh saw their interests as being more in line with China's... the Young Turks like Le Duan were more pro-Soviet, seeing their patronage as a potential counterweight to Chinese dominance. There was also a moderate faction represented by Pham Van Dong who could throw their support either way, trying to play the Soviets and Chinese off against other. You can pick out the change in tone as Ho Chi Minh steadily withdrew from the scene and Le Duan gained more and more power from the mid- to late-60's, and more and more of the Old Guard were purged or sidelined.
 
(President Johnson): Or some of our folks, including some of the old China Lobby, are going to the Vietnamese embassy, and saying, "Please notify the president, that if he'll hold out 'til November the 2nd, they could get a better deal."

(Everett Dirksen): Uh-huh.

(President Johnson): Now, I'm reading their hand, Everett. I don't want to get this in the campaign.

(Everett Dirksen): That's right.

(President Johnson): And they oughtn't to be doing this. This is treason.

(Everett Dirksen): I know.

(President Johnson): I don't know whether it's Laird; I don't know who it is that is putting it out, but here is the UPI 48 that came in tonight.

(Everett Dirksen): Yeah.

(President Johnson): And I'm calling you only after talking to Rusk and Clifford and all of them, who thought that somebody ought to be notified as to what's happening.

(Edit.)
(President Johnson): And my judgement is that Nixon ought to play it just like he has all along: that I want to see peace come the first day we can, that it's not going to affect the election one way or the other. The conference is not even going to be held until after the election. They have stopped shelling the cities; they have stopped going across the DMZ. We've had 24 hours of relative peace. Now, if Nixon keeps the South Vietnamese away from the conference, well, that's going to be his responsibility. Up to this point, that's why they're not there. I had them signed on board until this happened.

(Everett Dirksen): Yeah. Okay.

(President Johnson): Well, now, what do you think we ought to do about it?

(Everett Dirksen): Well, I better get in touch with him, I think, and tell him about it.

(President Johnson): Well, I don't know who it is that's with Nixon. It may be Laird. It may be Harlow. It may be Mitchell. I don't know who it is. I know this: that they're contacting a foreign power in the middle of a war.

(Everett Dirksen): That's a mistake.

(President Johnson): And it's a damn bad mistake.

(Everett Dirksen): Oh, it is.

(President Johnson): Now, I don't want to say so, and you're the only man that I have enough confidence in to tell them. But you better tell them they better quit playing with it. And the day after the election, I'll sit down with all of you and try to work it out and be helpful. But they oughtn't to knock out this conference.

"This is Treason" | Miller Center



So in 1968 there was an election going on. Nixon was the republican candidate. President Johnson had arranged a sit down between North and South Vietnam and America.

Nixon contacted the South Vietnamese president and told him that if he didn't go to the meeting, Nixon would get him a better deal after Nixon won the presidency.

Johnson was probably the most powerful politician America will ever see. He had friends everywhere. One of Johnson's friends told him about what Nixon had done.

So the transcript above is a phone conversation between Johnson and another of his friends, a republican congressman. Johnson is warning him that bad things will happen if things aren't made right.

Can you imaging Trump being able to call a democrat and talk to him? Work things out?
 
Last edited:
(cont from previous page)

Then Nixon hurriedly called Johnson



President Johnson
Hello?

Richard M. “Dick” Nixon
Mr. President?

President Johnson
Yes.

Nixon
This is Dick Nixon.

President Johnson
Yes, Dick.

Nixon
I just wanted you to know that I got a report from Everett [M.] Dirksen [R–Illinois] with regard to your call. And I just went on Meet the Press. And I said that—on Meet the Press—that I had given you my personal assurance that I would do everything possible to cooperate both before the election, and if elected, after the election. And that if you felt, the Secretary of State felt, that anything would be useful that I could do, that I would do it. That I felt Hanoi—I felt Saigon should come to the conference table, that I would—if you felt it was necessary—go there, or go to Paris, anything you wanted. I just wanted you to know that I feel very, very strongly about this, and any rumblings around about [scoffing] somebody trying to sabotage the Saigon government’s attitude there certainly have no—absolutely no credibility as far as I’m concerned.

President Johnson
That’s—I’m very happy to hear that, Dick, because [Nixon attempts to interject] that is taking place. Now, here’s the history of it. I didn’t want to call you, but I wanted you—

Nixon
That China Lobby thing is something that is—

President Johnson
I wanted you to know what happened.

Nixon
Sure.


Nixon told Johnson that everything was fixed and Johnson thanked him.
 
swing_voter said:
So in 1968 there was an election going on. Nixon was the republican candidate. President Johnson had arranged a sit down between North and South Vietnam and America.

Nixon contacted the South Vietnamese president and told him that if he didn't go to the meeting, Nixon would get him a better deal after Nixon won the presidency.

Johnson was probably the most powerful politician America will ever see. He had friends everywhere. One of Johnson's friends told him about what Nixon had done.

So the transcript above is a phone conversation between Johnson and another of his friends, a republican congressman. Johnson is warning him that bad things will happen if things aren't made right.

Can you imaging Trump being able to call a democrat and talk to him? Work things out?
Click to expand...

In the over 3,700 hours of secret recordings within the Nixon White House between Feb. 16, 1971 and Jul. 18, 1973, there is exactly one instance of President Nixon ordering a break-in. And it wasn't on the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate. It was during a June 17, 1971 Oval Office conversation, and the target President Nixon wanted burglarized was the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. The objective of the burglary was file rumored to have been stored in a safe there on the Bombing Pause prior to the 1968 elections which led the North Vietnamese to agree to attend the peace talks.

Now here's my question... do you think President Nixon order the break-in to obtain blackmail material on former President Johnson? Or do you think he was motivated by the possibility that the files would contain information on efforts to sabotage the peace talks?
 
Cordelier said:
In the over 3,700 hours of secret recordings within the Nixon White House between Feb. 16, 1971 and Jul. 18, 1973, there is exactly one instance of President Nixon ordering a break-in. And it wasn't on the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate. It was during a June 17, 1971 Oval Office conversation, and the target President Nixon wanted burglarized was the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. The objective of the burglary was file rumored to have been stored in a safe there on the Bombing Pause prior to the 1968 elections which led the North Vietnamese to agree to attend the peace talks.

Now here's my question... do you think President Nixon order the break-in to obtain blackmail material on former President Johnson? Or do you think he was motivated by the possibility that the files would contain information on efforts to sabotage the peace talks?
Click to expand...


Nixon probably wanted to recover stuff that made him look bad.

Johnson would've tore Nixon to pieces, Johnson is the most powerful politician we ever had.
 
swing_voter said:
Nixon probably wanted to recover stuff that made him look bad.

Johnson would've tore Nixon to pieces, Johnson is the most powerful politician we ever had.
Click to expand...

Nixon was no slouch either, though. I often wonder how the 1968 election would have turned out if it had come down to the two of them (and George Wallace)... and my best guess is that it would have come down to a couple of thousand votes in Cook County, Illinois again (just like 1960, except tighter).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom