Fifty Years After Saigon: Remembering the Nobility of a Betrayed Cause

[mikegriffith1]

It is not a myth.

Yes, it is a myth. Your argument is simplistic and misleading. South Vietnam and the U.S. were entirely willing to hold elections if they were UN supervised, but North Vietnam rejected UN supervision. This is a matter of record and is documented in untold numbers of books on the Vietnam War.

You are arguing against the agreement to hold elections.

You cannot be serious. The U.S. and South Vietnam did not sign the agreement. We did not sign it because it did not require that the reunification elections be UN supervised. Why was that? Because North Vietnam refused to agree to UN-supervised elections, and so the Geneva Accords did not require UN supervision for those elections. The Communists wanted elections that they could rig because they that knew North Vietnam's population was 2-3 million larger than South Vietnam's, but they could not rig the elections under UN supervision.

Who was at fault? That is what is up for debate

It is only up for debate if you swallow Communist propaganda and ignore indisputable historical fact. It is not up for debate among serious, objective researchers. Here is what then-Senator John F. Kennedy said about North Vietnam's desire to hold elections in 1956, explaining that the elections would be "obviously stacked and subverted in advance":

I include in that injunction a plea that the United States never give its approval to the early nationwide elections called for by the Geneva Agreement of 1954. Neither the United States nor Free Vietnam was a party to that agreement – and neither the United States nor Free Vietnam is ever going to be a party to an election obviously stacked and subverted in advance, urged upon us by those who have already broken their own pledges under the Agreement they now seek to enforce.

A New York Times editorial agreed, saying the following on April 6, 1956:

The plain fact is that neither the truce commission nor the signatories to the Geneva Agreement have as yet established in North Vietnam the essential conditions provided by the agreement for a “free expression of the national will”. . . . In these circumstances, Mr. Diem . . . is duty-bound to reject the proposed elections until the necessary conditions for freedom have been established in the North.”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You arguments are illusory and false.

We lost the war because

(1) the American public would not support the effort it would take;

(2) our leaders had no idea what Red China would do and still smarted from getting caught by it in the Korean War;

(3) the sanctuaries were not destroyed that allowed reinforcements, munitions, and other supplies to flow into the South;

and (4) the incredible corruption of so many of the South Vietnamese privileged that preserved their positions to the disadvantage of the country's needs.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You arguments are illusory and false.

No, they are factual and profusely documented. For more info on the Geneva Accords and the 1956 elections, see Colonel (Ret.) Robert Walker's book America and Vietnam, 1954-1963.

We lost the war because

Cue the North Vietnamese/Hanoi Jane talking points.

(1) the American public would not support the effort it would take;

False. See my book Reclaiming the Vietnam War. See Dr. Mark Moyar's book Triumph Regained. See Dr. James Robbins' book This Time We Win.

(2) our leaders had no idea what Red China would do and still smarted from getting caught by it in the Korean War;

False. See Dale Walton's book The Myth of Inevitable US Defeat in Vietnam. Mao made it known early on that he had no intention of intervening with combat troops as long as we did not attack Chinese territory. If you know anything about the history of Red China, you should know that China was in no condition to intervene in Vietnam and take on American firepower from 1965 onward, especially from 1966 through 1973. Military experts and CIA analysts, noting China’s difficult internal situation, repeatedly argued that Mao would not intervene, but LBJ rejected their counsel. When Nixon approved massive bombing of North Vietnam and mining Haiphong Harbor in 1972, China did not enter the war, even though we bombed facilities right next to the Chinese border and even destroyed some Chinese ships in North Vietnamese waters.

(3) the sanctuaries were not destroyed that allowed reinforcements, munitions, and other supplies to flow into the South;

Nixon inflicted enormous damage on the sanctuaries. You are decades behind the information curve. See Dr. George Jay Veith's books Drawn Swords in a Distant Land and Black April, and see Major General (Ret.) Ira Hunt's book Losing Vietnam. After 1970, we made steady progress in reducing the flow of weapons and supplies from key sanctuaries. But, Congress treasonously undid this progress starting in 1973.

and (4) the incredible corruption of so many of the South Vietnamese privileged that preserved their positions to the disadvantage of the country's needs.

You follow the Communist line and smear South Vietnam. North Vietnam was far more corrupt and repressive than South Vietnam. It is not even a close call. See Dr. Keith Taylor's book Voices from the Second Republic of South Vietnam (1967-1975), and Dr. Stephen Pan and Daniel Lyons' book Vietnam Crisis. Taylor is the world's leading expert on South Vietnam. His book deals with the substantial progress toward democracy that South Vietnam made from 1967 onward. The Pan-Lyon book documents the tremendous progress that South Vietnam made under Ngo Dinh Diem. Dr. Pan studied under Ho Chi Minh but soon realized he was a monster.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike uses all his failed arguments from before.

He would fail a frosh history course with this nonsense.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Mike uses all his failed arguments from before.

He would fail a frosh history course with this nonsense.

You have not challenged those arguments or proven any of them a failure

He is documenting what he states. You are making baseless assertions

Your claim is actually a reflection of the fact that college history courses are worthless and teaching crap to brainwashed simpletons