How did the Vietnam War start?

[Haltickling]

Instigated by another thread (about Senator McCain), a discussion about the reasons for the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam emerged. It’s obviously off-topic in the other thread, but I think it’s worth its own thread, particularly in regard of one theory brought up by areenactor. Here’s a heads-up about it:

before j.f.kenedy, america only had a few dozen special forces advisors in viet nam. that all changed when the nu's came to washington and appealed to kennedy for help, one catholic to another. since he was already being labled as soft on comunism, he complied with the request, and i corp was sent in, along with a couple div. or the army, and half our air force. so no it wasn't for the "military industrial complex", it was for continued catholic domination of a predominently budist country!

Now that looked pretty far-fetched to me, and totally incorrect historically. So I replied:

Oh come on, do you really believe that nonsense? Give me a break! According to this, the Catholics instigated the predominantly Protestant USA to start a war with a communist (=atheist) country over a Buddhist country (South Vietnam)? So the whole Cold War thingy was actually a religious crusade, including the Domino Theory and the Roll-Back-Policy? Probably the Korea War and the Cuba Crisis as well?

Sorry, this is just ridiculous! You’re certainly entitled to your own opinions, but that one doesn’t give your history knowledge any credit.

areenactor’s comment:

you are welcome to believe anything you'd like to hal. i'll stick with the facts. just remember, we are talking about american history, not german history, so i do think i may be a leg up on you.
steve

Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer about American history, but I’m quite well-informed about world politics, and this theory about the Vietnam War being instigated by Catholics over religious squabbles contradicted every other source I’ve read so far.

So, folks, I’d like to hear your own (American, British, whatever other nationality) view about this theory. And I’d like to ask areenactor for some corroborating sources supporting his theory. Let’s make this an intelligent and peaceful discussion, that war is long over. Thanks!

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Hal, if you'd like to talk to an American about the finer points of American History, without the innate bigotry or paranoia or xenophobia that comes with discussing history with Americans, talk to me LOL 🙂
Vietnam and our involvement there was far more complex than most explanations you'll receive. However, a commentator here likened the current Iraq situation to Vietnam 1967, '68. He's on the mark.
There are so many books about Vietnam. The best ones are "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan, and "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam. If you read them, I suspect you'll come to the conclusion that we've learned absolutely nothing from our past...

 

[milagros317]

I usually avoid political threads, and in this one I'll mostly stick to generally accepted facts, and let you know when I'm stating my opinion.

All of French Indo-China, including Vietnam, was conquered by the Empire of Japan by the end of December 1941.

The Potsdam Agreement (summer 1945) gave "zones of operation" in Vietnam to China (north) and Britain (south). After Japan surrendered, China occupied the north. Ho Chi Minh (the leader of the Communist Party), in Hanoi, proclaimed an idependent Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

In 1946, the British turned the south over to French colonial rule. Negotiations between Ho Chi Minh and the French proved fruitless, and what might be called the first Indo-China war took place between 1946 and 1954.

The French hoped to conquer the north, but failed. In 1954 they surrendered the fortress of Dien Bien Phu. This was considered to be a national humiliation. A conference in Geneva produced a partition of Vietnam into two countries, North and South.

Note well: U.S. President Eisenhower (inaugurated January 1953) refused to intervene in the conflict when asked. My opinion: Maybe Ike was a lot smarter than people gave him credit for. Unfortunately, his wisdom in staying out of southeast Asia did not last. Having achieved a cease fire in Korea, he did not stay out of Vietnam.

After the agreement in Geneva that a popular referendum should be held was viloated, the Vietcong (guerrilla fighters supported by North Vietnam) initiated what may be called the second Indo-China war, which began in 1957 and ended in April 1975.

Under Eisenhower, only American advisors were sent. They numbered in the hundreds. But Ike did begin American involvement.

John F. Kennedy (inaugurated Januray 1961) introduced American combat troops. Their number, by 1963 when he was assassinated, was about 17,000.

Was the fact that the Nu family (and others in the ruling circles of South Vietnam) were Catholics an important factor in JFK's decision? I don't know.

My opinion: I doubt it, because JFK hoped to be reelected in 1964, and wouldn't dare let his religion overtly affect foreign policy. I recall vividly the anti-Catholic bigotry that had come out in the election of 1960, and JFK was not going to fan the flames of that for the next election.

Under Lyndon B. Johnson, American involvement in the war escalated greatly. He was the one who sent over half a million more troops there.

So, to Hal, my short answer is: The American phase of the war in Indo-China (1957-1975) began because we tried to pick up the pieces of a French disaster. Who turned a mistake into a large scale American disaster? My opinion is: Lyndon Baines Johnson.

 

[WorkInProgress]

To Milagros's well-written narrative, I would only add the importance of the Cold War climate. Johnson inherited from Kennedy, who inherited it from Eisenhower who inherited it from Truman, the sacred doctrine that it was a humiliating defeat for the U.S.--and especially for any president on whose watch it might occur--if another country "went Communist." The Manichean notion of a struggle between "the free world" and "the Communist world"--a model which did have some level of validity with respect to Western and Eastern Europe--was being simplistically and inaccurately applied to countries where a more accurate picture was one of civil war between two sets of militaristic tyrants who wanted power. The point of Vietnam was that Johnson felt he must not have a country "go Communist" on his watch.

Another book, if you have time for some in-depth reading from an ivory-towers perspective is Lloyd Gardner's Pay Any Price.

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Good God! Knowledgeable, intelligent people who appreciate history! I'm much gratified, and would you believe I hear angels singing?
I'm glad I'm here...I'm glad you guys are all here!

 

[Haltickling]

Thanks a lot for your very informative lines, milagros, and thanks to Knox and WIP as well for your support. Actually, your information correlates with my own sources and fortifies my opinion on the far-fetchedness of areenactor's theory.

Pity he can't reply now, as he's on vacation. But he probably wouldn't anyway. Whenever someone challenges his matter-of-fact statements directly, he just sees it as a personal attack and reacts indugnantly with "I don't have to prove anything to you". He's done that many times before.

Oh, Knox: I'll try to find these books in a library here, but I came to the same conclusion as you a long time ago... 😛

 

[WorkInProgress]

Now, having looked back and seen the genesis of the question (your exchange with Areenactor), I can tell you emphatically that America's involvement in the war was not about religion. Also, the only thing special about JFK, with regard to this war, was the timing of his presidency. While it is true that the volume of American personnel in Vietnam escalated during his administration (and would escalate a lot higher under Southern Protestant Johnson), a close look at the Eisenhower presidency shows that the sense of American interest in Vietnam was established most solidly in the 1950s. I would add that, if you want to cut through a lot of detail and just get the essentials on Vietnam, a good source is the Vietnam chapter in John G. Stoessinger's Why Nations Go to War, which is used primarily as a college textbook but is perfectly accessible and useful for general knowledge.

Conspiracy theories, by the way, are a historic topic in themselves. (I'm working on a PhD in history, by the way.) At the time of Kennedy's election in 1960 there were plenty of American Protestants running around saying that Kennedy in the White House would mean the Pope in the White House by proxy; one could hear the same thing back in 1928, when Al Smith, a New York Irish Catholic, was the Democratic candidate against Herbert Hoover. Of course some conspiracies do take place, but any time you hear that the standard understandings of an event are one big lie and that there's a simple truth that's been covered up by that big lie, you are right to be skeptical.

*thinking back*

Not that it matters to me, but isn't "Areenactor" the fellow who announced some months back that he was gone from this board for good? (And I do repeat, not that it matters to me.)

 

[sceej56]

Posted on this topic in the original thread as well. I found the suggestion that American involvement in Vietnam was a function of some Catholic conspiracy to dominate the country to be ludicrous and bigoted - particularly given the lack of supporting material. That it was apparently posted by a Jewish board member is peculiar; given that the Jews were the subject of similar accusations of secret kabals to seize and maintain power in the infamous "Protocols of the ELders of Zion". Many Jews have complained that this "blood libel" fosters anti-Semitism; odd to see one engaging in similar smears against another religious minority.

 

[WorkInProgress]

Correct in principle, though actually I'm under the impression that the term "blood libel" is usually used to refer to the theory that the general Jewish population is guilty of the murder of Christ. Especially in the Middle Ages, that got expanded into the theory that Jewish communities kept the tradition going by abducting and ritually murdering Christian babies, and even more recently than that the belief has occasionally flared up.

But theory-mongers today are never typical of any group they may represent.

By the way, the real reason the Vietnam War started was that the tickling community conspired it so as to get a chance to tie down Ho Chi Minh and have a go at his feet.

 

[TickledToDeath]

The UNreal Untruth about how the Vietnam war started.

The people and government of Ho Chi Minn City promised the people and government of Hanoi a large quantity of "Thai Stick"and a virtual boat load of fresh South China Sea Lobsters in return for a near ton of Hash(and some Eggrolls).😀
The Ho Chi government had a seperate deal with Thailand to acquire the Thaiweed but that's irrevelant.
Shortly after picking up the Thailand Herb the troops smoked all the weed and ate all the lobsters, showing up in Hanio with nothing but bad case of crabs.
The People and Government of Hanio were not amused or pleased.

The Rest is History.

Believe it, or not.🙄 😉 😀



"Baaaaaad History"
By
TTD😀

 

[tkrexx]

Many good points and issues already supplied in this thread. The only thing I could add would be the subject of geographics. The U.S. wanted to strengthen our presence in that hemisphere, to help "box in" the threat of communism. Our only major strategic spot in that area was the Philippines, and to a lesser extent, Okinawa and Guam. Viet Nam was to be the United States' foothold on mainland Asia.

Rxx

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Ditto T-Rexx, however, given our presence in the ROK, two footholds would've been even better than one, and it made sense in having a solid bulwark against Mao's China, as well as the embellishment on Kennedy's inaugural pledge to "meet any threat, etc", as a message to Moscow. I really think the main reason for our involving ourselves in Vietnam was a geopolitical one, only, and didn't require us to learn anything about local customs, local history. We're making the same mistakes in Iraq.

On Steve: he claims the reason he came back to the board was incredible groundswell caused by members who begged him to come back.
If you've dribbled your morning coffee or tea all over your shirt from reading that, I offer my sincerest apologies.

 

[milagros317]

For the record, I was not one of the people who begged him to come back.

I am one of the people who is amused when anybody declares that they are leaving, and then comes back within a month. 😀

 

[sirjasper2002]

Excellent comments, all. Regarding JFK and the "Catholic question," I remember a funny story about Harry Truman: during the 1960 election, bigwig Democrats asked Truman to stump for Kennedy; Truman agreed to do so for the good of the party, despite his hatred of Kennedy's father, Joe Sr. At one stop, Truman was asked about the Pope, and responded, "I'm not as concerned with the Pope as I am with the Pop..." 😀

 

[BigJim]

Just for the record, there was quite a movement of people asking Steve not to leave. One of the reasons he did leave temporarilly was that I called his views on a delicate subject "akin to nazi-ism", or something similar. Unfortunately Steve is Jewish and lost a lot of his family in the Holocaust, which caused the remark, although it was meant to express my disgust at his opinions, to cause un-intended offence. He can be over-sensitive at times, but that time I realised I had over-stepped the mark and apologised. I told him if he was going to leave, to not leave because of that remark because I was unaware of the ramifications of it.

Although it wasn't the only reason, it was the catalyst that made him decide to quit the TMF and when I retracted he had a change of heart. I know there were also several significant people on the TMF that asked him to think again, because they told me themselves. In all, I'm glad he didn't leave. He can be over-sensitive and he can be what I call "blindly patriotic", but he is a good bloke at heart when you actually get to know him. Apart from his participation in heated debates which can cause a lot of people to get riled, (including me on occasion) he can be as good a contributor to the community as anyone.

 

[WorkInProgress]

Makes sense to me, and for the record, I only raised the question to be a wiseguy, having witnessed many "farewells" in chat rooms and even used the device in my own chat room stage play. (I hope I'm not revealing too much, but it's not like it's a "famous" chat room stage play.)