Talk:First Indochina War

---

US Involvement

There has been some discussion about the US--or at least parts of public opinion and even parts of the establishment--actually being against helping former colonial powers regain control of their former colonies. I will see what I can find in my copy of the "The Pentagon Papers".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:32, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The U.S. as a matter of policy rejected colonialism and imperialism, since it was seen as unsustainable in a world where major world powers can have the snot kicked out of them by a neighbor country the size of Montana. However, the Viet Minh was seen as a Moscow puppet organization, bent on bringing Vietnam under Soviet domination. As we all know, the U.S. was vehemently anti-communist in it's foreign policy, so it was in our "interests" to help France in Indochina since a colonial French authority was seen as a better alternative to a Moscow-backed Vietnamese one. -- The KoG | Talk 21:15, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we can suss out a truly coherent American idea on this point. Generally the point that iFaqeer makes was most evident in the Western Hemisphere, where the Monroe Doctrine prevailed -- the US was then both anti-colonialist and self-protective. In other parts of the world, it didn't hold. The US had just given up the Philippines itself! I think it's best we stick to the documented facts here, which speak for themselves, rather than going POV on what the US may have intended or should have met its word &c. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I give the impression I was pushing a POV? -- The KoG | Talk 13:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

No, you gave the impression that the train of thought you described/expressed was already in existence. My point was what Dhartun says; that it was exactly during this period—between the end of WWII and the start of America's direct involvement in VN—that this policy was forged/came into existence.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:42, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for clarifying that. -- The KoG | Talk 00:37, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Disregarding the politics of the time (not that they were not important) i dont understand how in this section the USA is described as having "an inherent oppostion to imperalism" whilst "helping colonial powers regain their empires". isnt this a complete contradiction? seeming though solid evidence of the official stance taken is lacking, should this not be removed entirely anyway? --AnRK 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To do list

This is my first participation in a collaboration. Should we be setting up a to-do list, posting items in this discussion area, or just start editing and see what happens? A good documentation site on the history of the Vietnam War is http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam.htm. It includes the Pentagon Papers (which is identified as a public-domain U.S. government document), the 1954 Geneva Accord, etc. The Geneva Accord set up a "provisional military demarcation line." No where is the word "partition" used, and the accord is clear that the military cease-fire line was to be regarded as a temporary line until elections would be held. --Sentience 21:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome! A to-do list is probably superfluous and would be quickly overtaken, as it were, by the editing process. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can create one—it will only be useful if you and/or others keep it current. COTWs can be fast and loose.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Some images from the Library of Congress are available here. They appear to be public domain. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 06:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History of Vietnam text

I imported the History of Vietnam text, which is immeasurably better than what we had here (most POV about Ho Chi Minh's own desires/overtures, and badly bollixed in terms of time narrative). There are still some problems, though, and I'm ready for bed! The issue of how much territory the Viet Minh actually controlled after September 1945 is crucial; I don't have that handy. Clearly by 1950 it was more substantial, but I didn't think that the guerrilla movement was that successful until after the Bao Dai installation. I've got Karnow's history of Vietnam (which is not just about the "Vietnam War'< but has whole chapters on the 19th century colonization) on the bookshelf, so I can hopefully work that to our advantage. But mainly we have nothing in that text speaking to the progress of the war, major battles, etc. which is really what this article should be about. (When it's good enough, we should trim the text in that source article and point here, of course.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A couple of questions

Second paragraph:

The Viet Minh, experienced in combat against Japanese troops, launched a rebellion against the French.

A couple of thing could be added to give the reader more information; answers to questions that came to mind as I read it

The Viet Minh, experienced in combat against Japanese troops [during WWII?], launched a rebellion against the French [who were occupying for what reason, since when?].

-- Tarquin 23:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article says all of the French forces were volunteers. Are you certain this is correct? I recall reading a book on Dien Bien Phu where the author (forgot his name and the book`s exact title unfortunatley) said a large part of the French troops there were Alerian colonial troops and I have a hard time beliving they could be volunteers, esspecialy considiring the fact that it was claimed in this book that morale in their units was lower than in units of French nationals or Legionares.

Vietnamese patriotism

Go to my work on the French version I re-write in French. I can still put the original in AmericanEnglish here. In many interviews, Pham van Dong has pointed out clearly the fact that French colonial repressions and prisons have turned nationalists to communists. I can put the Declaration of Independence written by Ho Chi Minh with the help OSS Detachment 101 Major Archimedes Patti to put the order of liberties in the same way as in the US Declaration of independence with the eternal words of Thomas Jefferson.

Takima 03:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

North and South of Viet Nam

North and South of Viet Nam (not geographically) came only after the Genva Accords of 1954 to regroup the French armed forces in the South for total evacuation from all Indochina in 1955 and the Vietnamese armed forces from all Indichina (including Cambodia and Laos) in the North. The war of Independence was all over French Indochina, including Cambodia and Laos.

Let's be serious and not confused.

Takima 04:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins

I am french so I apologize for my english which is far to be perfect :) In this comment, I will try to add some details to the "Origins" paragraph.

During the summer 1945, some nationalist demonstrations took place in Hanoï. Their demands were not accepted by the french authorities. Those movements were led by the Viêt minh which is the league for the independance of Viêt-Nam (the "Viêt-nam Dôc Lâp Dông Minh") created on may 1941 after the Tsin Tsi congress.

Next, Hô Chi Minh proclaimed the independance of Viêt-Nam (not of Laos and Cambodia)on September 2, 1945 - the same day the Japaneses surrendered. But, as the french governement did not want to let Viêt-Nam to become free, the "2ème D.B." of General Leclerc was sent in Indochina. General Leclerc landed on ocotober 5, 1945 at Saigon and began with the "corps expéditionnaire français d'Orient" to reconquer the Cochinchina and the South-Annam. Actually, it was done fast; four months. Therefore, Hô Chi Minh had to negotiate with French, and particularly with Jean Santeny. On march 6, 1946 the Hô Chi Minh-Sainteny Accord (a.k.a. Fontaineblau Accord)agreed to Viêt-Nam an autonomy in the "Union française" (French Union). However, it was a matter of autonomy under the french domination and not of independance, but Hô Chi Minh accepted it.

Yet, the french settlers of Cochinchina, with the support of Amiral Thierry d'Argenlieu ("haut-commissaire de la France en Indochine") declared the independance of Cochinchina what HCM refused it. Then, HCM set about french settled in Annam and Tokin. Next, d'Argenlieu retaliated by the bombing of Haiphong (a east-Indochina-coast city) from the "Suffren" warship. It caused more than 6,000 deads (on november the 26th, 1946). HCM riposted again by killing french who lived in Hanoï on december 1946. So that, the war began on december 1946.

The war was led with all the indifference of French who considered Indochina as a colony far, far away. China became communist on october 1, 1949 and supported Viêt minh so that since 1950, U.S.A. helped France (weapons...) in a context of Cold War. Yet, after the French (Grl De Castries)defeated by Viêt minh (Grl Giap) at Dien Bien Phu battle, France lost the hope to win. So, the end of war is signed on july 1954 by the Genève Accord. It gave the independance to Laos, Cambodia and to Viêt-Nam(s) which is divided in two by the 17th parallel line.

First Indochina War was Cold War !!

• A lot of false things have been said in America and France about this war, this "dirty war" was a taboo. Now the truth is being told in France, i think it's time to update your old American view about the conflict using modern sources. Relying on a single man's own POV (Bernard Fall - 1966 book) for a such important and vast period covering two wars is not serious (where's the neutrality? where's the overview?) and a big mistake!! This article has no source except a single book submitted by a Vietnamese person who also did the author's article (with all due respect sir Takima).
• The USA have financed 80% of the First Indochina War, supplying money (400.000.000$) and war material to France (uniform, helmet, rifle, tank were all US). 60's US trooper? no 50's French! | Douglas Dakota in Nam? No Dien Bien Phu!
• The Chinese gave weapons and Russian gave money to the Vietminh.
• Denying "Cold War" is modern US hypocrisy. This particular conflict was both a "Colonial" and "Cold" war. The French were named "the only rampart of the Free World against the evil of communism" by the US government at this time don't forget it.
• The US government has supported the French the same way it did before with the South Koreans, as a way of stopping the Red expansion in South-East Asia. Korea War and Indochina war were biaised conflict between the USA and the USSR will you dare telling this is untrue?
• The French used US Douglas Dakota supply airplanes while the Vietmihn used Russian AA cannons.
• Operation Vulture (Opération Vautour): US B-29 raid was planned at Dien Bien Phu to save the French soldiers, the US president did accepted the French proposal of dropping the bomb (this solution is a déjà vu in the Korean War!) but Churchill refused (to save the soldiers from the backeffects of the bombs and to maintain the upcoming Geneva Meeting) so the Vulture Operation was cancelled at last.
• Fifth column support to the Vietmihns in France with the communist activists (students strike and "union des femmes françaises"' sabotage were all communists)

EnthusiastFRANCE 18:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• The source for "80%", "400 millions $" and the American supply quoted in the American involvement paragraph is the "Diên Biên Phu, chronique d'une bataille oubliée" (Dien Bien Phu: Chronicles of a Forgotten Battle) 2004 documentary written and directed by Peter Hercombe and produced by Transparences Productions. It features French & Vietnamese armies archive footages and veteran interviews. It was broadcasted on the French national TV "France 2" the 4th of May 2006.
• "mercenaries"? The French force was made of regular soldiers from the Légion Etrangère, parachutiste etc.
• Bayonet fighting in the trenches of Eliane hill not even mentioned in your article.

EnthusiastFRANCE 18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people may want to re-write the history that historians have written, but Wikipedia is not the place to do this--'original research' is excluded. The articles on the Cold War and Category:Cold War do not include the First Indochina War in the Cold War for the reason that it was a colonial/anti-colonial war. The facts you lay out does not change that: warring parties always week help from about where ever they can. The current First Indochina War article include statements about the fears of the U.S. government regarding communism and how this led the U.S. to pay a large part of the war in its later years. More could be said somewhere about how John Foster Dulles tried to turn the First Indochina War into a Cold War battleground and also how the French government was not interested in this, as it feared America (with its anti-colonial opinions) might change the war direction into something other than the French government wanted--a full re-establishment of their colonial rule. Whatever the ideas and hopes of Dulles and others like him does not, however, change the facts of the war.

If changes are to be made in this article stating the First Indochina War was part of the Cold War, the place to start is with the wiki articles on the Cold War and their underlying references. Whether or not the Cold War Wiki editors will accept such a change, remains to be seen. This can be discussed on the Cold War talk pages. Hmains 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Some people may want to re-write the history that historians have written" yes and this what some Wikipedians have done so far with denying the Indochina War as part of the Cold War. I don't want the History be rewritten by the Reds. History is not set for eternity as new discoveries are made showing unseen aspects and denying others. Ho Chi Minh was seduced by communism when studying in (Metropolitan) France, all he wanted to do was to lay down a communist autonomous regim over Indochina. This political aspect makes this War was not only a simple independence war (like the Algeria War was) but a Indepedence/Cold War mixed particular conflict. Also there were Vietnamese who were French-loyalist and who fought with the French against the communist Viet Minh, this an historical fact that must be mentioned as an evidence that this conflit was political. What do you mean by "original source?" In the antiquity period some stories were told as the truth, while there were later demonstrated as fantasy myths carrying sense (meaningful) but not the Truth. "I worry that my son might not understand what I've tried to be. [...] Everything I did, everything you saw, because there's nothing that I detest more than the stench of lies". Kurtz in Apocalypse Now EnthusiastFRANCE 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why U.S. involvement then?

As much as I disagree with much of the tone and argumentation of the French Enthusiast, he is correct that the First Indochina War must be viewed as part of the incipient Cold War: from whatever way you look at US motives for assuming the financial burden of France's fight, whether to reinforce French support for the EDC or out of fear of Communist China, the view from Washington was part of the Cold War paradigm, particularly after the success of the Chinese Communists in 1949; the New York Times called Indochina "the Greece of the Far East", as clear a contemporary Cold War reference as you could ever hope for. By 1954 the United States was paying for 78% of the French war effort and Eisenhower considered taking over militarily from the French if they fell at Dien Bien Phu.

If the First Indochina War is not mentioned in the Cold War section then that is an oversight that needs rectified - no serious scholar of the Cold War would accept the view that the First Indochina War was not a component of the Cold War.

If you need further information on this see in particular Mark Lawrence Assuming the Burden, Odd Arne Westad The Global Cold War and a new volume being published soon by Fred Logevall and Mark Lawrence, The First Vietnam War: Colonial Conflict and Cold War Crisis Cripipper 05:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hmains' view is made more explicit on the "History" of this article than on his unsigned answer (I've added his signature later to make it clear): "First Indochina War NOT was Cold War however much some wanted it to be." However, again, History cannot be set by a single man, this is the way of Totalitarism not Democracy. Denying "Operation Vulture" and the US monetary involvement is pure hypocrisy and a try to rewrite the History.
• I apologize if my tone can sound like "aggressive" or something like that, but this is the tone of a man who feels betrayed, all i want is the truth to be said, nothing more, nothing less than justice to the deads. EnthusiastFRANCE 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Additional evidences taken from the US Air Force Magazine article (aug.2004):
  • "USAF B-26s loaned to France [...] still wear the nose art they carried in Korean action, mere months before." (History repeating itself)
  • "Washington wanted to help. The question was how far President Dwight D. Eisenhower would go to prevent a communist triumph at Dien Bien Phu." (you'll notice the significant use of "communist triumph" instead of "independentist triumph") EnthusiastFRANCE 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cold War

See Wikipedia:No original research. As I said, this should be taken up in the Cold War articles, not here. And the point of Wiki is NPOV, not attempting to push an agenda from whatever direction that may be, not Red or Anti-Red or anything else. The tone of some comments here seem to be agenda pushing. I also fail to see why 'Reds' would be interested in denying the First Indochina War to be part of the Cold War, if that were the case. What would be their individual or collective motivation in doing so? Sounds like unfounded conspiracy theory, at best. Thanks Hmains 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmains - could you please clarify what you believe is an unfounded conspiracy theory? And could you further elaborate on what leads you to believe that the First Indochina was not part of the Cold War? Had the United States not been funding the French war effort then it could reasonably be excluded from being seen as part of the Cold War, but that is not how history played itself out. I have provided sources to show that it is viewed within the Cold War scholarly community as being part of Cold War history. What more do you want? Cripipper 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• My sources for "80%", "$400 millions", "US Helmet, rifle, uniform, tanks", "Bayonet fighting in the trenches", "Operation Vulture (w/B-29, H-Bomb and Churchill)", "The French were named the only rampart of the Free World against the evil of communism by the US government", "The French used US Douglas Dakota supply airplanes while the Vietmihn used Russian AA cannons". are reliable and legitimate as already told before (BTW Cripipper seems to have used different sources but agrees with mine):
  • (The source for "80%", "400 millions $" and the American supply quoted in the American involvement paragraph is the "Diên Biên Phu, chronique d'une bataille oubliée" (Dien Bien Phu: Chronicles of a Forgotten Battle) 2004 documentary written and directed by Peter Hercombe and produced by Transparences Productions. It features French & Vietnamese armies archive footages and veteran interviews. It was broadcasted on the French national TV "France 2" the 4th of May 2006)

These are original sources in any way, so you cannot accuse me to not follow this Wikipedia rule:

• • "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say"
• I agree to follow up this talk in the proper section. However, I would like to quickly answer your questions before moving. Since you're asking what motivation, here's one perspective: because it legitimates ("unlegitimate": because there were non-communist & French-loyalist) the communist take over of Indochina disguising this political (ideological) conflict under an independence (ideal) war, which is a far more legitimate battle (internationally acceptable) gathering more popular support than a fight in the single name of communism. Also i understand some Americans don't want to be associated with the French in this war, which was both lost and imperialist (unlegitimate) in a certain point of view. But the truth must be told, whatever it's dirtiness. The French Wikipedia classify the Indochina War as part of the Cold War ("Guerre Froide") as you can see (i didn't worked on it but Takima did for a large part including the source author articles, remember what i said about so much power in the hands of a single man...). EnthusiastFRANCE 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)