Donnie Strine
Hist 301
Assignment 2
1.) Discuss the significance of the following quotation:
"Whatever hopes Ho Chi Minh had for securing American
assistance died in anticommunist paranoia." Do you agree
or disagree? Why?
I disagree with this statement because it seems more to
be that Ho Chi Mihn’s hopes for securing American
assistance died with president Roosevelt. Although
anticommunist paranoia was exceptionally high at this
point in time, Roosevelt maintained his position against
European Colonization. Roosevelt even suggested that,
“”France has had the country—thirty million inhabitants—
for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off
than they were at the beginning… The people of Indochina
are entitled to something better than that”” (Olson and
Roberts 18). This leads me to believe that after the end of
World War II he would have readily attempted to help Ho
Chi Mihn achieve his dream of Vietnamese independence.
Roosevelt’s position leads me to believe that perhaps
he would have been willing to attempt to bring Vietnam
into the Capitalist world by helping them alleviate their
French burden. Britain and France maintained their stance
even though Roosevelt pressured them to consider giving
up their colonial affiliations, but the issue may have been
looked upon in a different light after the end of World War
II considering the United States great contribution to the
war effort.
Truman, on the other hand, didn’t have the slightest
bit of concern regarding Indochina. “Germany was in
flames but not yet defeated. Japan was losing the war but
refused to entertain the fact. There were troubles in
Palestine, a meeting was scheduled with Joseph Stalin, and,
of course, there was the entire question of the bomb”
(Olson and Roberts 19). The new president was forced with
resolving these situations currently most important to the
United States. Truman just didn’t have the time of day for
the concerns of Ho Chi Mihn or the people of Indochina.
2.) According to General Jacques Leclerc, "Fighting the
Vietminh will be like ridding a dog of its fleas." What does
this mean? Is it an accurate description of the French
Vietnam War? Why or why not?
This statement means that regardless of how the
French attempt to defeat the Vietminh, they will continue to
resist and pester them week after week. This is very
accurate description of the French Vietnam War because
this is exactly what the Vietminh had planned to do. “They
assumed that France would not have the resources to stay
for the long haul” (Olson and Roberts 24). Ho Chi Minh,
Giap, and Wei Guoqing (Chinese military official sent to
help prepare Vietnam for guerilla war) used the terrain and
climate to the best of their ability.
“Meteorologists classify it as tropical monsoon, but
the French troops dubbed it “wet hell”” (Olson and Roberts
24). Conditions were miserable for French troops fighting
and seeking our guerilla targets in Vietnam. Troops were
either wet from sweating or from the monsoonal rains at all
times. There was no relief in such a harsh environment, and
this really took a toll on the soldiers who hailed from a
much milder climate. The Vietminh’s goal was to be an
annoyance, and the climate and constant guerilla attacks
most certainly harassed the dog during the French Vietnam
War.
Georges Thierry d’Argenlieu most certainly did not fit
into the camp of belief that the Vietmihn could prevail over
the mighty French. A naval man, he was a serious French
supremacist and thought that the French would regain
control of Indochina without much struggle. Unfortunately,
he underestimated the Vietminh’s ability to wage guerilla
war. This kind of arrogance and ignorance played into the
Vietminh’s plan to outlast the French. This would
eventually exhaust the French of their resources and their
patience.
3.) “The battle of Dien Bien Phu was the most crucial battle
in the French Indochina War.” Do you agree or disagree?
Why or why not? In any case, why did President
Eisenhower refuse to intervene militarily (with American
troops and/or airpower) at Dien Bien Phu? Do you agree
with his decision? Why or why not?
Yes, I agree that Dien Bien Phu was the most crucial
battle of the French Indochina War. In fact, it was over
before it began due to poor planning from General Navarre
and arrogance from Colonel Castries. Fighting in the
highlands largely played into the hands Vo Nguyen Giap,
and his information specifically on Navarre’s plans at Dien
Bien Phu helped him even further. “… Vo Nguyen Giap
was dumbfounded… the roads were narrow and exposed…
Vietminh artillery would prevent supply aircraft from
landing at the hastily constructed airfield… Even in dry
weather the ground was covered with heavy, vined brush
that would clog tank tracks” (Olson and Roberts 33).
Navarre chose a situation in which he failed to see what
was stacked against him, and because of this he suffered
defeat at Dien Bien Phu, thus dealing the final debilitating
blow in the French Indochina War.
President Eisenhower decided not to intervene
militarily because of the possibility of dragging the United
States immediately into another war in Asia. I agree with
Eisenhower’s philosophy at the time of his decision. The
United States public most certainly did not want military
intervention in Vietnam. He was concerned that the use of
airpower would either culminate in the use of the atomic
bomb or in the deployment of ground troops in Vietnam. In
a meeting regarding possible use of atomic weapons in
Vietnam President Eisenhower exclaimed, “You boys must
be crazy. We can’t use those awful things against the
Asians for the second time in less than ten years. My God!”
(Olson and Roberts 38). I agree with his decision. The
United States would have realized sooner that the Vietminh
would have to be wiped off of the Earth to be defeated and
that it was a hopeless effort, however, it would have been
blood on Eisenhower’s hands.
4.) Which countries were the major participants in the Geneva
Convention of 1954? Which countries emerged from the
conference "victorious"? Which countries were "defeated"?
Explain and justify your answer.
The major participants in the Geneva Convention of 1954
were the Soviet Union, France, United Stated, Britain, and
Vietnamese representatives. The Soviet Union and Britain were
the only two countries without a clear political motivation at
Geneva. They emerged as the leaders of the conference. The
United States wanted Indochina to remain democratic. The
Vietnamese wanted to gain independence. Lastly, the French
sought to maintain some influence in Indochina.
France emerged as the only truly victorious nation.
Although the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu seemed to be a
great victory for the Vietminh, the Geneva Conference of 1954
quickly turned the tides on that feeling of defeat. The French
Prime Minister Mendes-France stated upon gaining his position
“I promise to resign if, one month from now, on July 20, I have
failed to obtain ceasefire in Indochina” (Olson and Roberts 40).
Mendes-France obtained ceasefire, and a decision to draw the
border between North and South Vietnam at the 7th parallel.
The Vietminh were the biggest losers at Geneva. “A
number of European and American journalists witnessed
Vietminh soldiers, upon learning of the Geneva Accords, begin
to sob uncontrollably over the sacrifice of so much for so little”
(Olson and Roberts 41). They won the war against the French,
but “Diplomacy seemed to have trumped military victory”
(Olson and Roberts 41). The United States also was a loser. The
possibility for a domino to fall in Indochina was still alive and
very real. This was their sole goal at Geneva, and they most
certainly failed. “Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told the
American delegation to leave the agreement unsigned” (Olson
and Roberts 41). This in a way foreshadowed possible
complications with the United States in Indochina that were
soon to come.
5.) From Appy, identify Henry Prunier and Vo Nguyen Giap and
compare and contrast in their assessments of the war? Whose
seems the more convincing to you? Why?
From his time spent in Vietnam, Prunier developed a very
accurate view of the Vietnamese mentality towards the war. He
witnessed Ho Chi Minh as a man who was simply looking for
help to gain the independence his countrymen long awaited.
Prunier understood that this was Ho Chi Minh’s top goal, and
that he would stop at nothing to achieve it. He identified the
change in American policy as possibly being “One of the
greatest disappointments in his life…” (Appy 40). As far as
Prunier’s attitude towards America’s involvement in the war he
identified himself as a “silent antiwar person” (Appy 40). He
chose not to speak out and share his opinions and experiences in
fear of him and his family being labeled as Communist.
Giap’s views of the beginnings of the war closely
resembled that of Prunier. Giap stated “History is not made of
“ifs”, but if American leaders had been wiser I think we could
have been spared the war” (Appy 42). A fundamental difference
between the two lies in the fact that Giap did not see the war as a
tragedy or a terrible thing. He viewed the United States
involvement as a choice to intervene, while the Vietnamese had
no choice because their independence was at stake. Prunier on
the other had would not see the war in this light because of his
cultural affiliation, and instead viewed the war as a tragedy. For
the United States it most certainly was.
I agree most with Giap’s views. I especially relate to his
that the Vietnamese people had choice but to continue to fight
for their independence. This is exactly how the United States
gained independence. The American Revolution was an admired
topic by Ho Chi Mihn, so much so that he even quoted the
American Declaration of Independence in his own declaration.