Posted on 07/25/2013 5:09:39 PM PDT by SJackson
Ho Chi Minh was a Communist terrorist. President Truong Tan Sang, whom Obama is trying to win over, is a leading Communist.
“We both reaffirmed the efforts that have been made to deal with war legacy issues. We very much appreciate Vietnam’s continued cooperation as we try to recover our Missing in Action and those that were lost during the course of the war. And I reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to work with Vietnam around some of the environmental and health issues that have continued, decades later, because of the war,” Obama said.
How nice.
“Finally, we agreed that one of the great sources of strength between our two countries is the Vietnamese American population that is here but obviously has continued strong ties to Vietnam,” Obama said.
Much of America’s Vietnamese population came here as refugees. It’s like claiming that the Cuban community bonds us to Castro.
“At the conclusion of the meeting, President Sang shared with me a copy of a letter sent by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman. And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson. Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States. And President Sang indicated that even if it’s 67 years later, it’s good that we’re still making progress,” Obama said.
The message to Truman came in 1946. By then Ho Chi Mihn had long been a dedicated Communist and Soviet agent. At the time the letter was sent, Ho Chi Mihn was murdering his political opponents while trying to wheedle Truman into helping him out.
The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence was indeed partly a cheap copy of the American Declaration of Independence in that it borrowed the format to issue a list of grievances against the French.
And the resemblance ends there. There was no commitment to internal freedom. Its sole real purpose was to kick out the French.
But good news. Obama will go to Vietnam according to President Sang.
“Last but not least, I also, on behalf of our government and our state, to extend to President Obama our invitation to visit Vietnam. And President Obama has accepted our invitation and will try his best to pay a visit to Vietnam during his term.”
Maybe he can chant the left’s favorite, “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh is going to win” chant while he’s there.
....he really expected a nonviolent dissolution of Europe’s empires to give independence to Vietnam.
*****************************************
Sounds like a reasonable expectation based on Englands actions .. I suppose approaching us was a “courtesy” move ... with us involved in Korea or just winding down and wanting to relax after WW2 and the French being unwilling to commit serious forces to oppose him the logical thing would have been to make a deal for VERY favorable trade terms and let him rule. Like all communist leaders he was all about the glory and money for himself... he could have had it.
I will grant that in 1919, the World Communist movement was just starting to get organized, the Soviet Union was still knee-deep in Civil War, and certainly the fight against colonialism back then, was one of the things that gave Communism some traction. But by the end of WWII, Ho was firmly in the Soviet Camp, and would have established a Communist dictatorship, with or without the help of the US.
It was Truman who allowed the French back into Vietnam. To that time Ho had seemed very compliant to American interests. One wonders whether the “Vietnam War” would have ever transpired otherwise.
Archimedes Patti, “Why Vietnam?”
Incidentally, Patti stood in American uniform with Ho during the playing of the “Star Spangled Banner” and the Vietnamese anthem during Vietnam’s independence celebrations in Hanoi.
Uh huh, a guy who had been with the Comintern for over 20 years was going to be "compliant" to American interests.
So, do you support Truman’s decision to have readmitted the French?
I would have gone with Patti’s impression. How could the US have supported colonialism? I think we really missed the boat on this one.
“Sounds like a reasonable expectation based on Englands actions”
England took those actions 40 years after Versailles.
“the French being unwilling to commit serious forces to oppose him the logical thing would have been to make a deal for VERY favorable trade terms and let him rule.”
I’d imagine he approached us because France didn’t want to fight the war and we pushed them into it. We armed them (including lending them an aircraft carriers) to the point where French Indochina troops of the early 1950s are indistinguishable from US troops in Europe in the early 1940s (same helmets, radios, weapons, etc.). We were the ones advocating containment, not France.
“But by the end of WWII, Ho was firmly in the Soviet Camp, and would have established a Communist dictatorship, with or without the help of the US.”
I’m not disputing that Ho was an evil man probably very early in his life; he certainly was able to use the West’s preaching against it, though.
I was thinking of all the colonies released in the 1940’s early 50’s (or promised during that time with turnover to local rule at a later date)... particularly African ones. I didn’t know we were supplying the French in the 1950’s ... I thought they were relying on a small “foreign legion” type force for suppression. Makes sense , we had so much “surplus” at that time and France was .. well france..
I don’t think Britain released any (besides India & Palestine) in the 1940s; I was under the impression that it was around 1960 and later for Africa/Asia/Caribbean (I could be wrong). The French initially refused to fight the war; they would have conceded Indochina without our prodding/supplies (they had no money and the public had no interest); we convinced them it was necessary and armed them to the teeth.
For a great read on this check out “Hell in a Small Place” (about Dien Bien Phu); the author (Bernard Fall) later died there covering American troops. He thought the US could win with the superior commitment and technology; he died without seeing our politicians lose the war though we never lost a battle...
“Makes sense , we had so much “surplus” at that time and France was .. well france..”
We were using our surplus in Korea, and unfortunately for France (and they were furious about it) we had a truce in 1953. Within months US artillery captured in Korea appeared in Indochina with Red Chinese advisors, and the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu had no way to counter it. The American air support to relieve the garrison never materialized, and they lost Indochina. After we left in 1973, the dominoes fell...
For all of the anti-French sentiment echoed here, people forget they lost 1.7 million men in WWI (more than we lost in all of our wars combined). Also, when they left NATO and went their own way (particularly in terms of nuclear weapons), they were determined to never play second fiddle to anyone again...and they haven’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.