NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / soc / culture / vietname / 18402 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 41.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!claris!szebra!scv@szebra From: ttran@cv3000.Prime.COM (T. Tran) Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese Subject: DIALOGUE/Reply XX2 Message-ID: <Bzq51B.Jzt@Saigon.COM> Date: 22 Dec 92 07:57:09 GMT Sender: scv@Saigon.COM Organization: Saigon.COM Public Access BBS; Data Line: (408)730-1092 Lines: 793 [ Another updated response to Cuong Bui. Whenever I have a few minutes ] [ to read my own posting, which was always done "extemporaneously", I ] [ find it full of all sorts of shortcomings. So, please forgive me for ] [ making changes here and there to it. ] I will reprint Cuong Bui's reply as is, with my comments, this time, preceded by "*>>". (The lines starting with "**" were my response in the first go-round.) >From <1992Dec8.070823.18152@news.media.mit.edu>: Thanks for mentioning my name on the subject line, but I can do without. I do not wish to carry on this dialog, however , there are some points that needed to be mentioned. If the intention is to advertise Khanh's work, then I think it has served its purpose. But to solely rely on one book and drawing all kinds of conclusion is imprudent. *>> I think KHANH's study is an excellent start for it's based on primary *>> source, with access to the entire intelligence files of the former *>> French colonial adminstration in VN. Those sort of things, you are *>> well aware, we never knew about growing up in SVN ! *>> It paints a very different picture of SVN, not the one we used to *>> believe in and taken for granted. Whom to believe ? Read it and form *>> your own judgment ! *>> *>> I can assure you that I've also availed myself of others' works. |Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese |From: ttran@cv3000.prime.com (T. Tran) |Subject: [POL] REPLY BUI -- CALL FOR A DIALOGU |Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 22:34:11 GMT | | <STUFF DELETED> |It did work in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, Russia ... |Give it a chance and it will work in VietNam too. Or we will end up |like Communist China, with the regime firmly in power, without human right, |freedom and democracy. The worst part is it can stay in that state for |a long time, not getting anywhere, and can easily reverse itself as |it did thru the Tianamen massacre. |If we recognize that VC is the root cause of all past , present |and future disasters, it must be eliminated. | |** A lot of people, I think, have the same expection as yours: VN will |** fall like a ripe fruit like the countries in Eastern Europe. |** Unfortunately, VN is a special case, whose environments and history |** are very different from Eastern Europe. Here are a few: |** |** a/ Unlike most EU countries, VN was and is a home-grown Communist |** movement, whose roots reached very deep into the social soil. |** Again, KHANH's "Vietnamese Communism, 1925-1945" will explain in |** details how deep these roots are. I would like to question the "home grown" and "roots reached very deep" statements. Are you saying that communism was "in the Vietnamese blood", that sooner or later would surface, with or without Ho and his comrades? Or are you saying that Vietnamese communism was different to Soviet or China ? What's about all the worshiping of Mao, Stalin, Lenin ? What's about the Ca?i Ca'ch Ruo^.ng DDa^'t massacre, or "Ba'c" tha^`n tha'nh ho'a ? Or kie^?m tha?o, to^? tam tam ? Or just some of the ra^.p khuo^n implementations? Or VC finally figured out that "communism is the longest path to capitalism"? *>> Your argument escapes me altogether. The Communists certainly believed *>> in Communism, at least at the time. They surely borrowed and adapted *>> the Chinese/Russian experiences to the local environment. If you *>> are trying to say that they didn't do the adaptation well -- it's *>> certainly a reasonable point. *>> But how does that have anything to do with "home grown" and "roots *>> reached very deep into the social soil" ? *>> Can you explain why ALL THE NON-COMMUNIST MOVEMENTS against the *>> French failed, and only the Communists succeeded ? There were NO *>> Chinese or Russian troops fighting along their side, only VNese. *>> It's the mass of these VNese fighting under their leadership for a *>> war to boot out the foreign invaders that indicates their "home-grown" *>> and "deep-rooted" characters. *>> Further more, do you think that a collection of "foreign-grown", *>> "rootless" mercenaries could surmount the hardship and sacrifice to *>> surprise one of the most brilliant military stategists of France with *>> such force and firepower that his best-laid plan ended in complete *>> ruins on the ground of Dien Bien Phu ? | |** b/ Unlike most EU countires, including the Soviet Union, VN embarked |** on an experiment with a market economy and "DOI MOI" very early, |** earlier even than the Soviet Union. |** That's why Russia cannot produce enough food to feed its people, |** whereas VN is the 3rd biggest exporter of rice in the world. A key thing that you forget is some of the infrastructure of a free market and capitalism was still left in South Vietnam, thru its people and their training and knowledge. Comparing that to N Vietnam, with 40 years under communism and many lost generations, you can see the difference readily, even within a country. So the point is not because of DOI MOI, but because of du+ dda?ng My~ Ngu.y . *>> Your point is well taken. But if you agree, it certainly makes VN *>> a different case from others ! |** If we insist on believing in ALL the fictions of the past, then how |** can we explain the fact that the Communists won the war and the US/ |** SVN lost ? Should fairly state that the VC and its allies, violating the Paris agreement, injecting huge amount of arms and aids to the VC to carry out their attacks, while South VN is observing the agreement, and running out of ammunition. *>> Let's try to look at the whole fact : before the signing of the Paris *>> Agrement, the U.S rushed to SVN as many ammunitions and weapons *>> as their logistics capability would allow. *>> Thieu refused to accept the Agreement, and ordered the SVN army to *>> "la^'n dda^'t" as much as possible. *>> (Sometimes I'm just absolutely astounded at how GENUINELY SELECTIVE *>> our memory is. Eastern philosophy has a term for it -- the tyranny *>> of views. Once we have a "view", we can only see, and remember what *>> that view allows us to see and remember.) |** It just simply boggled the mind that SVN, with all the self-righteous |** causes that we've ascribed to it, plus the U.S.A, the MOST POWERFUL |** nation that the world has ever known, failed because of some sort of |** Communist tricks ? |** Are we living in the wonderland of Alice, or the world of Rambos ? The communist tricks were: getting the US out, then broke the agreement and attack. If you follow many of the post mortum analysis of the VN war (in the American eyes), and the recent Gulf war, the US forces entered the VN war with an arm tied behind their back (Norman Schwarzkoff (sp?)) And thanks to the antiwar for the fall of SVN also. But the point is it's ridiculuos to think that the US with all its force failed. Or China with its billion of people and tactical weapon failed. The will or the resolution was simply not there. *>> *>> Again, your arguments escape me completely. The fact is that when *>> the Communists succeeded in forcing the US out of VN, they've *>> won the war already. It was just a matter of time. Please read *>> Decent Interval, written by Frank Snepp, documenting the final phase *>> of the VN war. *>> You would agree with me that, if ANYONE SHOULD KNOW, and not just *>> know, BUT REALLY KNOW, Frank Snepp should. We rely so much on *>> information fed to us daily for years and years by the psywar, and *>> now become so afraid of having it pull from under us, leaving us with *>> such unbelieveable anguish and helplessness that we'll do everything *>> to hold on to it. The CIA prohibited the publication of Decent *>> Interval, but thanks to this great country of ours, the court allowed *>> it to be published anyway. Frank Snepp had to, of course, resign from *>> the CIA. *>> The full title of the book is : "Decent Interval, An Insider's *>> Account of Saigon's Indecent End Told by the CIA's Strategy Analyst *>> in VN." *>> Read it please, and weep for the fate of a small country. *>> Read it please, and understand will you, why is it that to be *>> anything, anything under the sun at all, one would better have *>> a measure of independence. *>> Again, I fail to understand your point: "The will and the *>> resolution" is the main, if not the single most important factor *>> in any struggle. The question is not that the U.S or China did not *>> have the "will or resolution", but why ? *>> I respectfully suggest that because it's not a just war. *>> *>> You don't suggest that when China planned the campaign to "teach VN *>> a lesson", they had already decided before hand that "if the VNese *>> beat the hell out of us, we just simply "cuo^'n go'i" and "go *>> home" ? *>> |their invasion , attack on the South, and in turn, the South relied on US |and the West for aids and ammunitions to defend ifself. We could have |done a better job, not just defending, but also liberating the North, |but it was not to be the case. | *>> If your argument is that "whether you're right or not, but if *>> I don't like you, I'll do whatever I want any way", then it's *>> perfectly appropriate. *>> *>> Let's review the history in 1950's: *>> *>> -- VN had been RULED by France since 1850's *>> -- The Communists were the only movement that was still standing to *>> figth against French control of VN (of ALL VN, not just *>> Cocochina, for the Nguyen dynasty remained only as a figurehead) *>> -- Defeated, unexpectedly, at Dien Bien Phu, France had to AGREE to *>> negotiations. *>> On February 1954, before DBP fell, US General O'Daniel paid a *>> visit to the camp itself, reassured at the prospect of victory *>> at the coming blood bath. At the unexpectedly ferocious attacks of the VNese force and the *>> rapidly DETERIORATING military situation , France sent General *>> Ely to Washington for help. The U.S decided to make an offer to *>> France - "Operation Vulture" -- to use long-range bombers to wipe *>> out the VNese combatants. *>> -- The U.S at the time was ALREADY providing substantial aid to France *>> to prosecute the war. (American aid to support the French *>> Expeditionary Corps was over 200 M Dollars in 1953) *>> *>> (May be you can explain to me how we should thank the US for this) -- During the Geneva Conference (April/1954): ## The Communists were divided into two major camps: - Fight to the finish because at the time the Communists were in control of almost 3/4 of VN. - Compromise to take a breather because of: + Chinese pressure (China made a separate deal with France: * France still had control of Cambodia and SVN * The VNese Communists had control of NVN, while the Pathet Lao had control of Sam Neua and Phongsaly. Hence, China felt secure with these two buffer zones.) + Possible jumping into the fight by the Americans ## Under HCM's direction, the compromise was struck: - Temporarily separate the country into two zones - An election is to be held in 1956 to unite the country. ## NVN/France signed the agreement, the U.S and the Saigon regime didn't. But since the war was between France and the VNese, France was one of the two MOST important signatures to the Agreement It's reasonable to expect that the election would occur. France, despite her dire financial strait, was still looked upon as a superpower. Only later did we find out that, and so did France, that she could exert little or no influence upon American foreign policy. To be fair, at least in terms of a historical (not politcal/religious or personal) perspective, let's ask the following questions: -- Which side the US was on then ? -- The Saigon regime, a creation of France and then the US, which side was it on ? (Note that it was Bao Dai, the playboy king, who represented SVN at the conference. The true patriot of the Nguyen dynasty, King Ham Nghi, was then languishing in a French-imposed exile in a French colony. Again, read the history of this period and weep for the fate of small nations as a pawn of superpower politics. For Bao Dai to represent the VNese was like having a harlot preaching chastity to the congregation. But he did, and the world listened. Some of us still do.) Should it have any legal standing in terms of the struggle for independence that had continued without interruption since 1858 ? Had any leaders in the Saigon regime participated in any major way in the struggle against the French, or that most of them worked for the French ? *>> If your argument is that because the NVN were communists, therefore *>> the U.S and the Saigon regime did not have to respect the agreement, *>> well, it's certainly an argument. It's however, either a political, *>> religious, or personal argument, not a historical one. | |** For the "BETTER" life in SVN, please refer to my response to KVT on |** this issue. |** Besides, my point was not to disparage those who died for their |** beliefs in SVN, but that we died, even unbeknownst to us, for the |** strategic interests of the superpowers, NOT for the interests of the |** VNese. This is a blatant disregard for those who died protecting us from the communists, from another Ca?i Ca'ch Ruo^.ng DDa^'t, from Ba Mu+o+i Na(m DDo+`i Ta Co' DDa?ng, from Anh Hu`ng Lao DDo^.ng, from all the barbarous and inhuman crimes of VC. *>> Your points are well taken. I never state my support for those *>> policies ! But to have a balanced view, an understanding of OUR *>> OWN FAILURE in SVN, do you know how the peasants, which comprised *>> more than 80% of SVN population, lived ? How they were brutalized, *>> robbed, tortured, and worst of all, having their pityfull pieces of *>> land, their only means of livelihood, taken away from them by Diem's *>> policy and officials of SVN, which forced them to flee *>> into Communist-controll areas, which in the end spelled the defeat *>> of the most powerful country on earth ? The U.S government never *>> admitted WHY they lost in VN, but some very hard-working American *>> scholars understood the reasons. *>> *>> If I may, I will refer you to another book on this subject -- *>> "WAR comes to Long An", written by Jeferey Race, a former U.S military *>> Advisor to the province chief of Long An. He had access to Communist *>> defectors, all Communist captured documents, and especially *>> intelligence reports and analyses of both the US and SVN. And most *>> striking of all, the research was done in VN, while the war was still *>> going on, through actual live interviews with combattants of ALL *>> sides. He studied the period in the province between 1954 and 1965, *>> "during which each side laid the foundations for its subsequent *>> victory or defeat" (p. ix). *>> *>> You can be absolutely assured that he has no bias in favor of the *>> Communists. *>> To provide an example of the difference between how the world *>> looks to a person with a view -- when Jeffrey risked his life *>> advising the Long An province chief (a very important position for *>> a US officer, because Long An was considered THE CRUCIAL area that *>> protected a direct attack on Saigon), and a person without one -- *>> when he was simply trying TO UNDERSTAND as best as he could the *>> nature of the conflict. If there is something we can learn from *>> the tradition of the U.S, I'd be the first one to vote for this kind *>> of scholarly integrity, same kind of integrity that the VNese *>> culture used to prize so highly. "To use the term "Vietcong" is hard to justify. It means literally, 'Vietnamese communist,' whereas most of those who oppose the saigon governement are outside the Lao Dong party (since 1961 in the South called the People's Revolutionary party). On the other hand, the term 'insurgent' is equally misleading. The terms implies an uprising against a legally constituted authority, when in fact because of a whole series of fraudulent elections and coups de'etat neither the Diem regime nor its successors through 1965 could have been considered any more "legally constituted" than could be the leadership of the Lao Dong Party in the South... Researching this book has meant continual discoveries for me. When I began in September 1967, it was with a determination to have an open mind and to share these discoveries with others, whatever they might be. In what follows I have tried to let documents and records, and the Vietnamese people, speak for themselves. having proceeded thus I find I have reached conclusions which surprise even myself." (p. xviii, xix) *>> CB, you may find in this book those who had the same opinions as *>> yours, eloquently expressed. All we need to do is to try to *>> understand how was it that so many others failed so miserably to *>> agree with us. Jeffrey Race provided a rich context for a many-sided *>> explanation to this central question. |** Have you ever wondered why the Phillipine government asks the US |** to abandon its Air Force and Navy bases on Phillipine's land, even |** when it would cost their people over a billion dollars a year in |** terms of economic impact ? Have you wondered why VC is now inviting US back at CamRanh , or is begging Russia to keep stationing there ? *>> Your point totally escapes me ! As a soveign country, VN has the *>> right to form any alliance it chooses, esp. so that it will free *>> itself from having to rely on any SINGLE superpower. It's, on the *>> face of it, a very intelligent policy. *>> On this issue, I think Thinh N Nguyen put it best: From <1992Dec8.044722.16332@news.media.mit.edu> [[[[ I think to be fair we must compare the situation carefully. How independent can a small country like Vietnam be while all the super power countries have so much interest in her? Is communist Vietnam more independent than S. Vietnam? I would say yes. Even though they received many aids from China, the communists stood up to them at the border during the dispute. If the US would like to colonize a part of S. Vietnam. I imagine Thie^.u's reaction would be: "Yes sir! Do you want Cam Ranh to go with that." The VCs also played the Soviet and China against each others cleverly while S. VN was solely depended on the US for everything from aids to leadership. ]]]] |** As far as the independence of NVN, again refer to my response to KVT |** on the Khmer Rouge question. |** Your argument escapes me completely ! How can we accuse NVN of being |** a satellite of China when it resisted Chinese pressure to the point |** of having to defeat a Chinese invasion to maintain its independence ! VC killed and maimed thousands of young Vietnamese in their ambition in Kampuchia, and relied on their mutual-defense agreement with the Soviet Union. Otherwise, they would have obeyed already. Tri'ch Bu`i Ti'n: "Rie^ng nhu+~ng anh em thu+o+ng binh o+? Ca(mpuchia ve^`, to^i tu+`ng ddi vo+'i mo^.t so^' anh em ha^`u he^'t la` bi. cu.t cha^n vi` mi`n, ma'y bay Lie^n So^ mo^~i tua^`n hai la^`n cho ho. ve^` Saigon. Tha^.t la` thu+o+ng ta^m! Cu+' mo^~i nga`y co' tu+` 10 dde^'n 30 tru+o+`ng ho+.p nhu+ the^'! Suo^'t ga^`n 10 na(m ro`ng! Ma` co' ai la` con ca'n bo^. dda?ng vie^n nhu+ ho^`i tru+o+'c dda^u! Toa`n nhu+~ng con no^ng da^n va` thu+o+`ng da^n o+? tha`nh thi., tha^'p co^? be' ho.ng, bi. ba('t buo^.c ddi theo lua^.t nghi~a vu. qua^n su+., trong khi ca'c con o^ng cha'u cha thi` lo kie^'m cho^~ ddi du ho.c, ddi xua^'t ngoa.i, cho^~ la`m vie^.c de^~ da`ng va` nhie^`u bo^?ng lo^.c! ... Mo^.t mo'n no+. pha?i thanh toa'n so`ng pha(?ng " *>> First, let me reprint the portion you've deleted and decided not to *>> respond: ** The NVNese may be accused of many things, but no self-respecting Western ** scholar EVER accuses it of being subservient to any foreign power. ** The logic, as best as I could make out, seems to flow from the fact ** that because SVN, in getting help from the US, had to give up its ** independence, ipso facto, since the NVN also received help from China ** and Russia, they had to give up their independence. It's the sort of ** mentality that we in SVN have taken for granted for a long, long time. ** A century of French colonial education was not without its effects. Tre^n ghe^' ba` dda^`m ngoi ddi't vi.t Du+o+i' sa^n o^ng cu+? ngo?ng dda^`u ro^`ng. (Tu Xuong) ** Again, I refer you to KHANH's study. ** As for the independence of SVN, could you provide info to contradict ** the following historical facts: ** ** a/ The US, with the lobby of Cardinal Spellman and US diplomat Andrew ** Young, installed Diem as the president of the new SVN. ** b/ All decisions regarding whether to introduce US troops, and how ** many, and in what stages, were made in Washington, NOT Saigon. ** It's simply a conventional way to say that we invited US troops; ** actually, we didn't even have that privilege. ** If you have any doubt about this, please read "The Pentagon ** Papers". I use this as a reference because it's not an interpreter's ** study, but contains the original documents of the deliberation of ** the U.S National Security Council, the body entrusted with advising ** the US President on all national security matters. ** c/ No "President" of SVN could survive without US's blessing. Actually ** no coup d'etat in SVN could succeed without prior US backing. ** Do you ever wonder why MINH/DON were overthrown when the U.S had ** just used them to get rid of DIEM/NHU ? They were flirting with ** the French's idea of a "neutralist" solution for VN. (General DON, ** as you know, was an officer trained in a prestigious French military ** academy during colonial time.) ** Again, please refer to the "Pentagon Papers." *>> Now, let me respond to the issue of the Communist campaign against *>> Polpot. *>> I think whether the Communists should overthrow the Polpot regime *>> or waited for China to bring VN to its knee once China had completely *>> secured its hold on the Cambodians is an issue that we can debate. *>> *>> But you would agree with me on one objective: under no circumstance *>> VN should fall into de facto control of China, or any foreign power *>> for that matter. *>> *>> Let me reprint my reponse to KVT in this question -- [[[[ >> However, I have no doubt that the Khmer Rouge is simply a tool for >> Chinese foreign policy (without Chinese support for arms and materials, >> the Khmer Rouge would not be able to continue its existence.) >> This is a case where geopolitical considerations superseded any shred >> of human decency whatsoever. Out of a population of about five millions, >> they killed two milions of their best people - the entire educated class, >> a calamity of an unbelieveably tragic proportion. But China, with US's >> tacit support, is forcing that murderous band down the throat of the >> Cambodian people. >> >> Earlier, China planned to convert Cambodia into a Tibet of Indochina. >> With two millions killed -- including practically every Cambodian that >> could help run a modern Cambodia, and the enormous influx of Chinese >> advisers and settlers, a` la Tibet, Cambodia would have turned into a >> a perennial "brother" country of China, indeed a de facto province of >> China. Then with Chinese pressure from the North, Cambodian pressure >> from the west, China would be able to bring VN to its knees, creating >> a fait accompli Chinese sphere of influence in the South. >> That was one of the major reasons for China's decision to "teach VN a >> lesson", sending multiple divisions down the plains of NVN, along the >> traditional routes of attacks in early centuries. >> For VN's unexpected campaign to overthrow the murderous Polpot's regime, >> which at the time was attacking villages along the border of SVN, demanding >> the return of VN's islands back to Cambodia, put a sudden end to China's >> dream of dominating Southeast Asia, which was tantalizingly within reach. >> Why was that, with the coordination of both China and the US, VN was >> pilloried in the forum of world opinion as a despicable agressor, >> and China as the defender of the rights of the Cambodian people ? >> Do the superpowers of the world have any shame ? >> What lonely voices in the world condemned this brutal modern Hitler >> regime - the band of Polpot ? Why are Polpot and his cohorts being >> welcomed, even now, as leaders of a sovereign government in China ? >> Why are the United Nations allowed to supply two camps for Cambodian >> refugees on the border of Thailand controlled by the Khmer Rouge ? >> Why is the Polpot gang of murderers given an equal footing with Sihanook >> and others in the current UN-sponsored plan for Cambodia ? >> Has the world any decency left ? >> Do we, Vietnamese, still dream of relying on the superpowers of the >> world to "help" us on the issue of human rights and others ? >> Dare we look at these brutal facts to ask ourselves the question : >> Do the superpowers of the world REALLY care for OUR interests, or >> any small country's interests ? >> Do we just make it really easy for ourselves to pursue these goals, >> which are like motherhood and apple pies, but ignore the real >> implication of our alliances ? ]]]] *>> I find it so peculiar -- although understandable in light of a hundred *>> years of French education in VN and 50 years of one of the most modern *>> form of psychological warfare ever waged in recent history -- some of *>> my fellow SCVers lambasted the Communists for all the evils they caused. *>> There is no doubt that the Communists had and are having their share *>> of responsibility, but let's be fair. Let's ask ourselves a few basic, *>> and extremely simple questions: *>> *>> 1. Why did the French have to come to "civilize" the Vietnamese pagans *>> when VN had long been a state at a time people in Europe still didn't *>> know what the word "state" meant ? *>> Did any Vietnamese ask them ? Or they simply made up a pretext, *>> (that was a customary prerogative of the colonialists -- they all *>> had a long and illustrious history, with a lot of practice in *>> doing this) that VNese were mistreating the Catholics, that we *>> weren't allowing them FREE ACESS for trade ! *>> *>> 2. Why did the U.S have to pick VN as the fortress of anti-communism *>> to guard against a threatenning, MONOLITHIC, international communist *>> conspiracy ? *>> As history turned out, there was NO monolithic communism. *>> Remember that the OSS, a forerunner of the CIA, under the direction *>> of W. Donovan, provided assistance to HCM and his band of guerrilas *>> in their struggle against Japanese occupation. And that HCM wrote *>> several letters to President Eisenhower requesting aid and *>> cooperation after Dien Bien Phu, hoping to turn VN into an independent *>> oasis, free from the pressures of all superpowers. The U.S, of *>> course, refused. *>> *>> The VN war left about 3 million VNese dead. For the war against the *>> the French, how many ? All these VNese, or their descendants, may *>> still be alive today, had the French not subjugated VN, and the US *>> was wiser in its foreign policy ! Do the names Phan Thanh Gian, *>> Nguyen Trung Truc, Ton That Thuyet, Truong Dinh, Hoang Hoa Tham, *>> Dinh Cong Trang, Nguyen Thien Thuat, Tong Duy Tan, Phan Dinh Phung, *>> Cao Thang, Luong Ngoc Quyen, Trinh Van Can, Tran Cao Van, Nguyen *>> Dinh Chieu, Luong Van Can, Nguyen An Ninh, Nguyen Quyen, Pham Hong *>> Thai, Nguyen Thai Hoc, Phan Chu Trinh, Phan Boi Chau, etc. ring a *>> bell ? Or is it more likely that we become much more familiar with *>> and enamored of such names as "Chasselou Laubat", "Tar-be", "Convent *>> des Oiseaux". Or Paul Doumer, Hoang Cao Khai, Pham Quynh, Nguyen van *>> Vinh, Henri Riviere, Francis Garnier, General De Courcy, Admiral *>> Decoux, Albert Sarrault, General Leclerc, General De Lattre de *>> Tassigny, General Navarre, Descarte, Montesquieu, Chateaubriand, *>> Baudelaire, Alfred de Musset, J.J. Rousseau, Mallarme, Pascal,Valery *>> Pasteur, etc. ? *>> *>> Should we stop deluding ourselves by continuing to heap ALL the *>> blames upon the victims instead of the instigators for what happened *>> in VN during the last century and a half ? *>> Do you think it's child's play to wage a brutal struggle against *>> the most modern and powerful superpowers the world has ever known, *>> not once, but three times in the last hundred years ? If so, what *>> world are we living in -- Hollywood ? |> And again, it was the Communists that taught China a lesson. (I remembered |>the myth I was taught in SVN that North VN was just a satellite of China |>and Russia. What a satellite !) | |In 1958, Ho and his government signed away Truong Sa and Hoang Sa |to brother China. They are now welcoming Li Peng, the butcher of |Tienamen Square, as well as giving up part of northern border. The communists |will do anything to protect itself. |"Ye^u nu+o+'c la` ye^u xa~ ho^.i chu? nghi~a". Even if that means |giving away lands and killing a part of VN population. | *>> Not to belabor the point, but for any self-respecting scholar to *>> imply that the Communists haven't defended the territorial integrity *>> of VN is arguing not from facts but from convictions. * *>> I'm, for one, think that VN is wise to patch up its quarrel with *>> China so that it can concentrate all its energy on internal *>> development. *>> It had been a tradition in our history-- and a splendid tradition it *>> was, one that the Communists, because of the intoxication of victory *>> over such a powerful enemy, failed to heed -- that after defeating *>> the Chinese invaders, to send a "ddi co^'ng" delegation to make peace *>> with our giant neighbor. |** The story I understood about these two islands is this, although I |** haven't been able to locate any historical document to verify its |** authenticity: |** a/ In the early years, fearing that the U.S would occupy these islands |** and hence took them away from VNese sovereignty forever, the |** NVNese did not OBJECT when China printed a map claiming these |** islands as their own. |** b/ HCM and his government never agreed to sign away Truong Sa and |** Hoang Sa to China, or any part of the Northern border. Perhaps it is a side effect of reading only one book. Of course, va(n kie^.n ba'n nu+o+'c is hard to come by, but in this case it was given to us by, who else, China. There are many books relating to this subject, and a special interest group on SCV that can answer your question. *>> Your sarcasm is duely noted. Refer to my response above. *>> If you know of any book, reputable and scholarly ones, that contradict *>> KHANH's major thesis, or the facts as I have tried to state them as best *>> as I could, by all means, post them. *>> *>> There is no point in a dialogue to refer to some unknown references. *>> But the main point is it's silly to rely on this one incident to draw *>> the conclusion re: Communists' protection of VN sovereignty. There *>> are enough other events mentioned in the posting that have, I believe, *>> established that facts already. *>> *>> Let me reprint, with slight modification, a paragragh in my *>> respsonse to KVT: [[[[[ I want to thank all those who have engaged in this dialogue. Whether you agree with me or not, in the end, is not of primary importance. The important thing is for all of us to put all the facts as we know them on the table, and let the chips fall where they may. ]]]]] |** |** If that was the case, how can you explain the current dispute between |** VN and China re: these islands ? Oil. And this time, take my words, VC will not fight, for it will spell the end to their reign in VN. *>> I think your information is mistaken. The Communists already had *>> clashes with Chinese troops on this dispute. |<STUFF DELETED> |> |>And the following belonged to Nguyen Van Vinh, another intellectual |>giant in the literature I was taught in South Vietnam: |> |> "Among the many possible approaches, our people today should follow |> only one ideology: the Franco-Vietnamese ideology. Since we are |> so fortunate to have Great France as our master, let us try to hang |> on to our French master. Let us concentrate on our livelihood and |> our studies. Those scoundrels who encourage stupid things, if |> arrested, should be put into a wicker basket and rolled into the |> river (bo? ro. la(n so^ng)." (p. 41) |> |> |>For the sake of the next generation, let's not use the opportunity to have |>a great education in this wonderful country of ours -- the U.S.A -- to become |>the Pham Quynh's and Nguyen van Vinh's of the 1990's. |> |> |>T. Tran |> |I grew up and studied in the South too, but were never taught that |Ng V Vinh is an "intellectual giant", perhaps only a few excerpts about |"gi` cu~ng cu+o+`i", if I remember correctly. |As far as "bo? ro. tro^i so^ng", this is exactly how the communist killed |Kha'i Hu+ng, mo^.t nha` va(n trong Tu+. Lu+.c Va(n DDoa`n, with the order |to search and destroy from Ho himself. | | |c.b. ** Your impression might be different from mine, which is perfectly ** reasonable. In my highschool days, I used to devote a lot of time to ** Vie^.t Va(n -- Vietnamese literature. One of the most important signpost ** of the development of modern VNese literature was the popularizing of ** Quo^'c Ngu+~, the Roman scripts, where Pham Quynh and Nguyen Van Vinh, ** as editors of "Do^ng Du+o+ng Ta.p Chi'" (Indochina review) and "Nam Phong" ** ("Southern Wind") reputedly played a central role. Hence, their prominence ** in the intellectual pantheon of SVN. These two periodicals were considered ** major literary sources for understanding the period. ** Not to belabor the point, but here is another excerpt from KHANH's ** study: "Pham Quynh himself, however, never denied that he had been a paid agent of the colonial government. (He was paid 400 piasters monthly.) Nam Phong, too, advertised itself as a propaganda organ of French imperialism. The periodical had a French title. "L'information Francaise", and its own subtitles, "La France devant le monde -- Son role dans la guerre des nations", which were printed above the Vietnamese title. Beginning with issue 39 (September 1920) the French title and subtitle disappeard... According to Nam Phong, its founder was Louis Marty, director of the Political Bureau (secret service) in the secretariat of the government-general" (p. 42) ** How could characters of such shady past be selected as men of letters ** to the young minds of SVNese ? It's equivalent to Benedict Arnold ** being taught in U.S history book as a model for future generations ! ** But the sad fact is that there was a very good reason for them to be ** selected: for those who selected them also had sold their country down ** the river to the French. They couldn't see anything wrong with it ! |** As for the case of Khai Hung, I have no information on the circumstance |** of his death. I never claim that the Communists were lily-white. It was |** a brutal war, and they made quite a number of horrible decisions -- the |** Land Reform campaign in the North was one of the prime examples. | | |T. Tran | When the communists eventually fall, I hope there will be Nuremberg style court to try their crimes. We should collect and preserve these evidences before they can destroy them. As I said in the beginning, I do not believe carrying on this dialog is fruitful, due to things that I observed: conveniently ignoring facts or only partial facts, and lack of sincerity. As Du+o+ng Thu Hu+o+ng said: Nu+?a o^? ba'nh mi` la` ba'nh mi`, nu+?a su+. thu+.c la` no'i do^'i ;-) c.b. *>> I understand your bitterness and hatred of Communism. Nowhere in *>> my posting do I tout it as the ideology that all VNese should learn *>> by heart and follow ! * *>> The point that I am trying to make is this: *>> *>> - The war is over, and we have lost. *>> Let's face up to the facts, understand WHY we lost, not the why's *>> based upon all the fictions that had been dinned into our heads in *>> SVN, but the why's based on a realistic, factual understanding of *>> history, regardless of how painful and unsettling it might be. *>> (See Jeffrey Race's journey of discovery above.) *>> - Only by doing that that we have the right information to come up *>> with the right solution for the future of Vietnam. *>> Otherwise we will keep ourselves forever buried in a sea of *>> bitterness and recriminations, trying to REFIGTH THE WAR WITH ALL *>> THE TOOLS AND ATTITUDES THAT CAUSED US TO LOSE THE WAR IN THE FIRST *>> PLACE ! *>> - We, sitting comfortably in a soft chair in this great country of *>> ours, the USA, might like to REFIGHT THE WAR, for it costs us *>> nothing. (Actually it might enrich a few.) *>> I am absolutely sure that NO ONE in VN wants to REFIGTH THE WAR. *>> If it's the VNese in VN that we want to help, then let's LISTEN to *>> them. *>> *>> Let me quote again from Thinh N Nguyen, whose view, except for a *>> diversion of details here and there, I am in basic agreement: [[[[ Despite the embargo, already there are many CIA agents in Vietnam working on many sides, under many different covers. Japan, Singapore and Taiwan interests in Vietnam are not purely business. There are many rich little countries in Asia now and they are all shoping for bodyguards and hired guns. Take a look at those oversea Vietnamese who are anxious to be leaders. These people and organizations, if they can unite, would be a force to be reckon with but instead they are so divided they are not capable of doing anything meaningful and most young Vietnamese are now losing interest and trust in them. If these people believe in an election, they would have done it amongst themself already to create one strong political body. The only thing these big talkers can do now is probably wait for a change in Vietnam then waiving the flags and shout:"We did it!" It take very good leaders to take over the power in a safe transition. In order for a real democracy to have a chance, they must show up soon and gain trust and respect from all sides and the people. The best candidate would be some young, well educated leaders within the country with moderate thinking and lots of courages to lead Vietnam throught the transition period. This takes time. Mean while the level of education of Vietnamese must be raised and the standard of living must be improved. The hungrier the people are, the more they are willing to fight for foods and money. The better educated the people are, the less likely their will be talked into fighting for the B.S. artists. Very few of us will go back and spend enough time in Vietnam to justify playing armchair politic with the future of Vietnamese. The future of Vietnam should be left to the Vietnamese. Of course we must help them, but don't try to change some political system that you don't know how to fix and cannot be reponsible for. The world is not very kind to Vietnamese especially with the US not forgiving her for winning the war. In a few weeks, the US will lift the first blockage on the IMF dealing with Vietnam and the first thing IMF will ask Vietnam to do is making payment plan for the 150 plus millions dollars that S. Vietnam owed them. Be patient, it may take more than a life time to bring Vietnam out of the curse of misery that many enemies had bestowed upon her. But there are many things to do if you really want to help. The first thing is that the oversea Vietnamese must be united under solid leadership. Only when working together we can create a respectable force in the US and worldwide. With the kind of muscle similar to that of the European and US Jews, we can help protect Vietnam from powerful foreigners exploitation and manipulation. We can watch and control the communist government for them in area like human right violation. With the current condition, oversea Vietnamese can only anticipate and react to the situation. Give up a little and listen to one anothers and analize the facts carefully. The question is whether we want to be spectators once again or we will get involve this time. It won't be easy but it's worth while. I cannot emphasize this enough but the best effort now should be raising the standard of living and level of education of Vietnamese and freedom and democracy will come faster than you can imagine. ]]]]]