You 'debunked' zilch. The best you could do was regurgitate the same line: That China helped 'liberated' Viet Nam. China had no business in Viet Nam in the first place. At least the US had intention of putting the UN in charge of Indochina.
Likewise the best you could do is to come on to this forum to flame the Chinese and make childish remarks on Chinese people.
US had no intention to help Vietnam in the first place so what makes you so optimistic that they will put the so called intention into practice? At least China actioned and they succeeded. Whatever happens after independence lies upon your country's way of handling things.
Wrong...Not all of history was presented. Am willing to bet that this is the first time you Chinese boys had ever heard of the Ho-Sainteny Agreement and how it opened the door for the return of France to Indochina. And please spare me the line about how your patience are tested. Am also willing to be that this this the first time you ever meet a Viet who is not willing to suck up to you and taught you Chinese boys a few things.
Vietnam was still a colony of France, therefore it is absurd to think that it would take an agreement for them to re-enter. They would have re-entered regardless.
Allied plans for postwar Vietnam became clear with the Potsdam Agreement in July 1945. This Agreement stipulated that British forces were to occupy the southern half of Vietnam, up to the 16th parallel. Chiang Kai-shek's forces were to take the country north of the 16th parallel. Under Potsdam, these forces were restricted to "the round-up and disarming of the Japanese, and the Recovery of Allied Prisoners of War and Internees."
However, the actual behavior of the Allied occupation went way beyond this limited assignment. The Commander of the British occupation forces, Major-General Douglas Gracey, exceeded both the limits of the Potsdam Agreement and his superior, Admiral Mountebatten, who had specifically told him to confine his troops (British and Indian) to the "tasks which had been set." Gracey, with few troops of his own, relied upon the Japanese forces (he was supposed to be disarming) to control Saigon and the surrounding areas and keep the Vietminh forces at bay. Gracey also rearmed the 5,000 newly released French troops and permitted them to launch a coup d'etat on September 23, by which the French (once again) seized control of the Saigon government from the Vietminh.
I am also willing to bet that this is the first time you had heard of the Elysee Agrrement. Since you are so pro American and supported puppets this is likely to be something that you would have ignored.
No falsifying of any claims. China had no business in Viet Nam. China meddled in Viet Nam, contrary to you boy's claims about how China does not. China was involved in Viet Nam long before the US was. Do you deny those fact?
In that case France, Britain, US and co had no business to do with Vietnam, still, they were there. Ho requested for help and so we did. Therefore China had about as much business and rights to meddle in Vietnam, just like the way the rest of them did. Vietnam was so hopeless to the point that it doesn't matter in which hands they fall into, they would just end up being colonized or becoming a puppet of France or the US.
China, on the other hand, was differen't, we helped free your country. No matter how much you boat people cry about it, it'll still remain there as a fact. You can argue with your former country about that. I am sure the people of your "Communist" country, Vietnam, will have a lot to tell you about.
Bullshtt...!!! China relied upon the Soviets for ideological and material support. Would you care to research and cite for everyone how often does Mao cite Marx and Lenin? Am willing to bet that this is the first time you learned about Lysenkoism and that China adopted it. Why? Merely telling us that it was a tragedy does not explain why.
If it pleases you to find out that a "Commie Chinese" such as myself does not know it roots, then I would be the first to raise my hand. So I guess we are not so "Commie" afterall? I just pitty you for not being able to keep up with time and still thinks China is a communist country and everyone there are "Commies"
Yes...You Chinese boys have no problems attributing the same or similar to everyone else.
Well, that's nice to hear. At least we made something out of it and turned China into one of the biggest economies of the world, who happens to be the largest creditor to the US. Can't say that about Vietnam or America can we? They're either poor or bankrupt.
If China did not get involved then may be Ho would have gone away and no war, or at least a war not in the scale we know today, would have happened. So what business did China had in Viet Nam?
You can dream on. The fact remains that China helped liberate Vietnam and US got its butt kicked and went home without actually achieving anything. Oh wait they did help depopulate and flatten out your land. I guess this helped the process of rebuilding your country from scratch. May I also add, they pulled the plug on any form of support to the South Vietnamese.
To maintain independence. Why is that wrong?
I guess under the freedom of speech, you have the rights to say whatever you may please. Same goes to the great communist people of Vietnam. What is wrong for them to claim its independence? You both have to pick a side and so they did and they championed. I see nothing wrong in that.
Convenient strawman distraction.
I think it relates very well to what you say majority of the times.
Sure...
Ho
Quite damning, ya think?
Not at all, considering the fact that Ho had little options to choose from. Vietnam was in a mess, it was colonized and Americans refused to help it claim independence. He had good reasons to do this and rightly so.
Wrong...I learned history well enough. I showed you something new and shocking about Ho, did I not?
Just like how I showed you the other side of the coin? In the real Vietnam people's mind Ho must be a hero. No wonder his ideology still exist in Vietnam today.
It really is amazing that someone can be so dense despite repeated presentation of evidences. See the Ho-Sainteny Agreement above.
Funny that I am being called dense. I can drinkk that up with coffee and still taste the sweetness of it. Ho was powerless do claim independece by himself and he needed help. Read the bit about what General Douglas Gracey did and the bit about Chiang Kai Shek and if you are still not clear of what was happening at the time.
Wrong...The historical records said no such thing. Those are opinions that you took to be 'historical records'. By the way, Ho imprisoned Ngo Dinh Diem in North Viet Nam for a while. The historical records has it that Diem called Ho a 'traitor' to Ho's face. The records also has it that Ho actually feared Diem and that if Diem was killed, the Viet Minh would not be able to handle a popular revolt since the Ngo family was quite popular in North Viet Nam. Diem was the youngest province governor and under his watch, he rooted communist cells out of his province. And still Ho did not dare kill Diem even when Diem was in chains. Learn anything new? Of course you did.
Sure I did. I learn't that he got killed whilst he was out of his chains
That was in 1949. France was invited back into Viet Nam via Ho in 1946.
Sure it was and he bought some new friends with them too. I can bet that it was the first time you heard about the Elysee Agreements. I guess now you know how desperate France were in securing one of its former colony? They've also potrayed their actions as war on Ho's communist army in order to secure US support. That's something new and shocking for you isn't it?
If Ho did not invite France back in, may be the UN, not US would have been involved.
Now, that's Ho and strawman distraction made easy.
You 'debunked' nothing. Reluctance does not automatically come from malice. If the US was reluctant to support Ho, wrongly or rightly, Truman believed that reluctance was warranted. By your argument, every time a businessman ask for time to consider any proposal, that mean he was hostile and has malice towards the deal
It's already debunked. They were tacit partners.
You really think that the US would stand on a UN bully pulpit to pressure France to leave Indochina alone? history says otherwise..
Fine...Then we can condemn the KMT troops for that. But then what business did the PRC had in Viet Nam?
PRC's reason in Vietnam was the same as the French and the US.
Good...Then this mean you accept the fact that during the war, the refugee flow was North-South and it had nothing to do with the bombing campaign. It had everything to do with the people not wanting to live under communism. So much for the lie that the Vietnamese wanted communism.
Did I say I accepted the facts that came from you? Of course not. Your facts are warped as we know it. From my personal set of facts, it was due to the level of looting, fighting and bombing that was happening at the time. Not because they don't want to live under communism. Otherwise Ho's men would not have fought the Americans for 20 years. Vietnam people would have overthrown it's current government if they really were unhappy about it. But guess what? Vietnamese boys such as yourself are regarded as commie boys today.
Nope...Only giving you Chinese boys what you sowed. In the past, I have been polite and challenged strictly on point, usually technical. It is only once some of you cannot stand being challenged and done by a Viet, a supposedly inferior Asian, that the cheap personal attacks became standards for you boys. I do not belittle the Indians or the Pakistanis here.
Well, with your attitude it looks like you will always get negative treatments from others. Respect needs to be earned, you cannot command it. When individuals say something offensive to you, you don't hold everyone accountable for it. Needless to say, you don't attack everyone else for it. I guess being a typical yank that you are, you have the urge to cause collateral damage.
Even if the KMT ousting was true, what is more relevant was the fact that once France came back to Viet Nam, rivals to the Viet Minh began dying. Let me guess, you believe the standard Chinese propaganda that all of Viet Nam were behind Ho?
Please refer to the Élysée Agreement. France wanted Vietnam back at all cost, so surely killing some Vietminh rivals wouldn't hurt. It is a way for them to get support from both the nationalists as well as the US. Even though some rivals could have been killed by Ho's men, but they are at war afterall. It's not meant to look pretty or be nice.
The Americans stopped the election. That is a fact and if you can call that Chinese propaganda then so be it. For me, if the Americans had to go against their own set of ideology (cough Democracy cough) to achieve something, then that something must be special thing.
Does King's stature as a civil rights leader made him infallible? The man was wrong about a subject. Do you deny the fact that the US wanted independence for Indochina?
Fact is US wasn't looking for independence for Vietnam. They just wanted to help it's colonial ally retain power, either by means of colonizing it as a whole or dividing it amongst themselves.
Could have done it without China's help. But then again, I could use the same argument to say that American presence was necessary to keep communism at bay. Too bad that America lost faith but that does not negate the fact that South Viet Nam was independent in spite of Chinese propaganda.
Could have done it? well I am sorry to upset you once again by saying that the reality was quite the contrary. France went home and so did the US. They both failed and South Vietnam crumbled and that was the story.
Thanks to Ho's treachery.
Typical strawman's comment.
Here is the order:
- Ho Chi Minh
- France
- China
Some more strawman's distraction.
They were there be
fore the US. Please do not try to change the timeline of historical records.
Yes they were there but US joined in therefore needs to be accounted for.
This should be the order:
France
UK
KMT
Ho
China
US
If US wasn't there then the war would have long been over.
So now you resort to quibbling words in trying to squirm out of the fact that you have been proven wrong about communism in America. If the CPUSA can book a convention hall in NYC, the capital of capitalism in America, then how the hell does that mean communism is 'forbidden'? How does that mean 'not allowed' and by whom? Did you believe the hotel management was ignorant of their client else they would have refused the business? You got busted. Own up to it.
I was talking about the spread of the communism ideology around the world which the US clearly forbids by the use of force. They tried to stop the Soviets spreading, then they tried to stop the Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans and the Vietnamese etc am I not correct? Don't tell me that is normal practice now. So if America was indeed democratic, then please explain to me why they engage in war at least once every decade? why do they resort to genocide and torture? I think you are the one who's getting all tangled up here, not me.
Got nothing to do with communism being unable to persuade America to its side. You are still proven wrong about this. To you, communism not being prominent mean 'forbidden'. Give me a break...
Who needs America by their side? The Americans are nothing but a burden to its allies. Take a look at the number of times it dragged its allies into war? To you, dysfunctional American democracy being non prominent equates to being a treacherous commie.
How often do you traveled to Viet Nam? I mean actually traveled there in person and not via Chinese propaganda. I once asked directions on how to get to Ho Chi Minh City by driving from anywhere and the whole bus erupted in laughter. Only party officials call it Ho Chi Minh City. For ordinary Viet, it was still Sai Gon and they believe it will be so again. The majority of the Vietnamese are borned after 1975. They have no emotional ties to the war and even hatred for the government. I talked to a lot of former VC fighters who made it and all of them regretted their participation in the war. Here is one of them...
