Walter Cronkite's Ridiculous Spin on the 1968 Tet Offensive in South Vietnam

[Tom Paine 1949]

Thanks to Deadstick and Hector12 for trying seriously to put into context what was really happening in the world — emphasizing the Sino-Soviet split — during the height of and towards the end of the War in Vietnam & IndoChina. I don’t agree with either on some important matters, however.

Many Americans are totally unable to see beyond superficial inherited domestic ultra-partisan party propaganda, and hence are obsessed with totally superficial matters, as reflected in the title of this thread. People like mikegriffith1 , Soupnazi630 and The Sage of Main Street are so busy accusing others of “spinning” facts they can’t see that they themselves are totally indoctrinated and are spinning reality like a top, too dizzy to even try to understand how the world was shifting under their feet during those days and right up to the present.

The Sino-Soviet split actually began before the Tet Offensive and reached its most violent expression soon after in 1969, before the Nixon Administration started seriously withdrawing our troops in Vietnam. Kissinger saw that there were far more important ways to strengthen world capitalism than by wasting our resources & international prestige, while destroying our national cohesion and screwing up our economy … just to fight a stupid “forever” land war in Asia against a deeply rooted nationalist movement that happened to be led by communists.

Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Communists were always wise enough to see they needed to try to keep good relations with both Russia and China — especially while the U.S. was occupying their country and trying to use the small well-connected French-educated (later also often English-speaking) Catholic sliver of the population against them. Catholics in the North, some 600,000 or so of them, had been encouraged and aided by the French and U.S. to flee to the South after the French lost their U.S.-financed colonial war with the Viet Minh.

Today the Vietnamese communists want Western investors leaving China to help strengthen their economy, though as usual everywhere, over time their one-party dictatorship has itself become ever more corrupt, bureaucratic and brutal towards all dissenters.

By 1969 the Soviet leadership was more worried about war with China than they were concerned about helping the Vietnam Liberation Movement. They aided Vietnam largely to strengthen their hand in the Sino-Soviet ideological competition, but they regularly pressured the Vietnamese to moderate their stance in negotiations. Red Guards in China, on the other hand, in the midst of the Cultural Revolution actually held up deliveries of weapons from the Soviet Union to Vietnam. Both countries in those days were more likely to fight a Nuclear War with each other than to fight one with the U.S.A.

Later, after the Cultural Revolution ended with an increasing role being played in China by the PLA, the Chinese role became even more reactionary in the world, despite increasing criticism of Russia as “social imperialist” and “revisionist.” Their foreign policy more and more aligned them with the U.S. against Russia in proxy wars in Africa and Afghanistan in particular.

 

[Hector12]

Thanks to Deadstick and Hector12 for trying seriously to put into context what was really happening in the world — emphasizing the Sino-Soviet split — during the height of and towards the end of the War in Vietnam & IndoChina. I don’t agree with either on some important matters, however.

Many Americans are totally unable to see beyond superficial inherited domestic ultra-partisan party propaganda, and hence are obsessed with totally superficial matters, as reflected in the title of this thread. People like mikegriffith1 , Soupnazi630 and The Sage of Main Street are so busy accusing others of “spinning” facts they can’t see that they themselves are totally indoctrinated and are spinning reality like a top, too dizzy to even try to understand how the world was shifting under their feet during those days and right up to the present.

The Sino-Soviet split actually began before the Tet Offensive and reached its most violent expression soon after in 1969, before the Nixon Administration started seriously withdrawing our troops in Vietnam. Kissinger saw that there were far more important ways to strengthen world capitalism than by wasting our resources & international prestige, while destroying our national cohesion and screwing up our economy … just to fight a stupid “forever” land war in Asia against a deeply rooted nationalist movement that happened to be led by communists.

Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Communists were always wise enough to see they needed to try to keep good relations with both Russia and China — especially while the U.S. was occupying their country and trying to use the small well-connected French-educated (later also often English-speaking) Catholic sliver of the population against them. Catholics in the North, some 600,000 or so of them, had been encouraged and aided by the French and U.S. to flee to the South after the French lost their U.S.-financed colonial war with the Viet Minh.

Today the Vietnamese communists want Western investors leaving China to help strengthen their economy, though as usual everywhere, over time their one-party dictatorship has itself become ever more corrupt, bureaucratic and brutal towards all dissenters.

By 1969 the Soviet leadership was more worried about war with China than they were concerned about helping the Vietnam Liberation Movement. They aided Vietnam largely to strengthen their hand in the Sino-Soviet ideological competition, but they regularly pressured the Vietnamese to moderate their stance in negotiations. Red Guards in China, on the other hand, in the midst of the Cultural Revolution actually held up deliveries of weapons from the Soviet Union to Vietnam. Both countries in those days were more likely to fight a Nuclear War with each other than to fight one with the U.S.A.

Later, after the Cultural Revolution ended with an increasing role being played in China by the PLA, the Chinese role became even more reactionary in the world, despite increasing criticism of Russia as “social imperialist” and “revisionist.” Their foreign policy more and more aligned them with the U.S. against Russia in proxy wars in Africa and Afghanistan in particular.

With his fulminations against "world Communism" The Sage of Mainstreat assumes that in Vietnam we were fighting against a unified movement led by the Soviet Government. If that had ever been true, it was not true by 1968.

Also, just because Communism was unpopular when it was imposed by an invading Army, as it was in Eastern Europe and Tibet, did not mean that it was unpopular when it resulted from an internal insurgency, as it did in Vietnam and Cuba.

All we had to do to avoid the War in Vietnam was to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954.

 

[Deadstick]

The Tet offensive of 1968 was of political significance. It meant that the end of the War in Vietnam was nowhere in sight. This pumped energy into the anti war movement, and contributed to the eventual Communist victory.

It also meant the American mother and housewife and many other Americans watching on TV the US Embassy in Saigon, where US Marines were engaged in a full blown gun battle with the NLF who had infiltrated Saigon those watching it live on TV would have thought WTF we will never beat these people, that was a big propaganda victory of Tet.

 

[Deadstick]

If the boat people represented the majority of the Vietnamese, the Communist would not have won that way.

Another departing shot from the Empire was to kidnap thousands of Children many from Orphanages.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Not true, the Geneva accord stated election under International observers that included the people who were in Geneva, including the US, Britain. France. Russia. China, and the Vietnamese from both parts, it was the US who said they would not be bound to honour the outcome.

Wrong. This is another liberal myth that was debunked literally decades ago.

The U.S. and South Vietnam wanted the 1956 election to be held under UN supervision, but the Soviets, the Chinese, and the North Vietnamese rejected this. Instead, thanks to the Communist delegates, the Geneva Accords called for the election to be supervised by the Communist-controlled International Supervisory Commission (ISC). The ISC had a 3-2 Communist majority: North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union vs. France and England.

This meant that the Communists would win by 3-2 any ISC vote on ballot integrity, voter intimidation, voter suppression, ballot counting, voter eligibility, polling procedures, etc.

This was one of the main reasons that the U.S. and South Vietnam refused to sign the Geneva Accords. Even Senator John F. Kennedy said that an election under those circumstances was unacceptable, and he supported Eisenhower's and Diem's refusal to hold the election under ISC supervision.

Hector12: The Tet offensive of 1968 was of political significance. It meant that the end of the War in Vietnam was nowhere in sight. This pumped energy into the anti war movement.

Wrong. You didn't bother to watch Dr. Robbins' presentation on the Tet Offensive, did you? Nor did you bother to read the article on Tet by Dr. Herman that I linked in the OP, did you?

Tet was a massive military blunder that gave us a prime chance to end the war quickly, but LBJ was too timid to take advantage of it. Again, the VC suffered such staggering losses in Tet that from that point onward the VC consisted mostly of NVA soldiers who were assigned to the VC.

Far from boosting anti-war sentiment, multiple surveys taken during and after Tet showed that Tet actually increased public support for the war and caused a larger majority of Americans to favor stronger action to end the war quickly.

Finally, the VC attack on the U.S. Embassy was a botched operation that was quickly defeated. The small VC unit that made the attack thought there would be large reinforcements coming soon after they breached the outer wall, but no reinforcements came--in fact, no reinforcements were even slated for the Embassy attack! The VC who breached the outer wall were all killed in short order, without ever even stepping foot inside the Embassy, contrary to the media's bogus reporting that the VC had occupied the Embassy.

 

[Flash]

These stupid confused Moon Bats learned everything they need to know about the LDS Church from watching South Park, everything about Soccer from watching Ted Lasso and everything about Vietnam from watching Operation Dumbo.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

mikegriffith1 said:

“The Communist-controlled International Supervisory Commission (ISC) … had a 3-2 Communist majority: North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union vs. France and England.”

Both the ISC “Control Commission” and the “Joint Commission” established by the Geneva Accords and responsible for the implementation of its many proposals including the never-to-occur elections was comprised of 290 military officers and staff members contributed from each of three countries, Poland (Soviet bloc), Canada (the West) and India (nonaligned), the latter being the designated lead member.

The failure to hold elections had nothing to do with any imagined 3-2 “communist majority” and everything to do with the general situation and knowledge of the likelihood of a communist victory by Ho Chi Minh if they were held as scheduled. The South at the time was officially designated at the time as being under the control of the French Union (French Empire).

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

By the end of the War in Vietnam there had been border clashes between the Soviet Union and Communist China. After the Vietnamese Communists defeated us they invaded Cambodia to stop the Communist Pol Pot regime from killing Cambodians. In the spring of 1979 The Army of Communist Chin a invaded Communist Vietnam. The Communist Army of Vietnam repelled the invasion of the Communist Army of China in a few months, killing about 20,000 Communist Chinese soldiers.

There is your "World Communism." Communist countries were busy fighting each other.

Natural Outcome of Clique Supremacy


When Communists think they have control of the world, they always start fighting among themselves. This happens in all republics when the dominant class thinks it is safe from its natural enemies. It happened in Stalin's Russia and it happened in Rome after the patricians murdered the populist Brothers Gracchi.

It's happening under our Birth-Class Supremacy. Preppy Progressives against the Neo-Con Nepos.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The United States granted Vichy full diplomatic recognition, and sent Admiral William D. Leahy to France as ambassador. President Franklin Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull hoped to use American influence to encourage those elements in the Vichy government opposed to military collaboration with Germany.[6]

Chickenhawks Are America's Last Supper

Same in South Vietnam, not so much that they were on the enemy's side but that they were useless and corrupt cowards, including the general population, who wouldn't help us block Communist expansion. What if we had wasted all our energy after D-Day trying to get the snail-eating French to help us destroy the Nazis?

 

[mikegriffith1]

When American GIs fled Vietnam clinging to their helicopters it did not look like a victory parade.

A truly juvenile argument. When you're not repeating debunked Communist talking points about the war, you're making silly, inane comments such as this one.

If those who seem determined to trash our effort to keep 19 million South Vietnamese from falling under Communist tyranny ever want to educate themselves on the subject, they might start with these books:

The Myth of Inevitable U.S. Defeat in Vietnam (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2002), by Dr. C. Dale Walton. Examines the main components of the myth that the war was unwinnable.

The Vietnam War Reexamined (Cambridge University Press, 2017), by Dr. Michael Kort. A comprehensive response to the standard liberal version of the war.

Strategy for Defeat: Vietnam in Retrospect (Presidio Press, 1998 edition), by Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp. Among other things, details the insane restrictions that were placed on our military operations in Vietnam.

Drawn Swords in a Distant Land: South Vietnam's Shattered Dreams (Encounter Books, 2023), by Dr. George J. Veith. A superb history of the war.

The Tragedy of the Vietnam War: A South Vietnamese Officer's Analysis (McFarland Publishers, 2014), by Van Nguyen Duong. An excellent history of the war from the South Vietnamese perspective.

Combat Operations: Staying the Course October 1967 to September 1968: The U.S. Army in Vietnam (U.S. Army: Center of Military History, 2021), by Dr. Erik Villard. Among other things, provides a thorough analysis of the Tet Offensive.

Hanoi's Road to War, 1954-1965 (University of California Press, 2013), by Dr. Pierre Asselin. Among other things, destroys the Communist/liberal myths about the Geneva Accords, the scheduled 1956 election, etc.

Vietnam's American War: A History (Cambridge University Press, 2018), by Dr. Pierre Asselin. Makes extensive use of newly available North Vietnamese sources and sheds important light on how Hanoi's leaders viewed the war.

There are many more good books that present the facts about the Vietnam War, but these would be a good place to start. They're all available on Amazon.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why was it justified for the United States to fight against a leader who would have won a fair election, when his election would not have harmed the United States?

If Ho Chi Minh would have won a fair election, why did he refuse to hold a fair election? Why did he refuse to hold an election under UN supervision but would only hold an election supervised by the Communist-controlled ISC?

Vietnam is one nation, not two. Vietnam veterans I have talked to told me that the Communists had considerable support in South Vietnam.

This is patently absurd. This Communist myth was exploded during the Tet Offensive, again during the four years after Tet, and again during the 1972 Easter Offensive.

During Tet, the vast majority of South Vietnamese sided with their government, much to the shock of Hanoi's leaders. After Tet, popular support for the Saigon government increased substantially because the people got a firsthand taste of what life would be like under Communist rule.

Sure you do.

If you were actually there, you'd know what a joke our efforts were.

North Vietnamese sources confirm that our efforts were successful and effective.

I suspect that you've done very little reading on the Vietnam War, so, FYI, starting about 25 years ago, North Vietnamese sources began to surface that prove that we were winning the war in 1962-1963 and that we resumed winning the war from 1967 until we withdrew our last contingent of troops in 1973.

Dr. Lewis Sorley discusses some of this evidence in his best-selling and widely acclaimed book A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam (1999).

A much more detailed presentation of this evidence is provided in Dr. Mark Morley's two books Triumph Forsaken (2006) and Triumph Regained (2023).

Which is certainly what nearly every Vietnam vet I ever talked to thought.

I believe you're lying. Every single survey done among Vietnam vets has found that 70-92 percent said they were proud of their service in Vietnam, and that at least 70 percent said the war was an honorable, worthwhile effort.

Since I served 21 years in the U.S. Army, starting in 1982, I had the chance to speak with many, many, many Vietnam vets, and nearly all of them said the exact opposite of what you claim you heard from other Vietnam vets.

The same is true of the Vietnam vets with whom I've spoken since retiring from the Army in 2003.

All of that assumes that the people we supported were legitimate as a government.

LOL! So your idea of a legitimate government is the brutal, despotic Stalinist government that Ho and Le Duan ran in North Vietnam?! Why am I not surprised? After all, in other threads, you've heaped praise on Mao Tse Tung and Joseph Stalin, two of the worst mass murderers in human history.

The Saigon government was far less oppressive than the Hanoi regime. This is not even a close call. Read Dr. Lien-Hang T. Nguyen's book Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam to get a good idea of just how murderous and despotic the Hanoi regime was.

Diem canceled elections. Then the Generals canceled Diem. We weren't supporting "democracy" or a "treaty ally", we supported a bunch of thugs who were looting the country.

Gee, that's the exact same thing that the Communists said at the time and still say. What a surprise.

The fact of the matter is that Hanoi's leaders were the real thugs, and those thugs refused to hold a free and fair election. They wanted an election "supervised" by the Communist-controlled ISC. Even Senator John F. Kennedy said South Vietnam had every rational and moral right to refuse to take part in such a bogus election.

There was General Ky, who idolized Hitler and stole a truckload of gold on his way out.

Is there no Communist myth that you won't repeat? No, General Ky did not steal a truckload of gold while leaving the country. After Ky arrived in the U.S., he earned a modest income from a liquor store that he ran and at which he worked long hours. Perhaps you're thinking of Nguyen Van Thieu.

And, no, Ky did not "admire Hitler." Some leftist journalists falsely reported this and refused to retract it even after Ky furiously denied saying this and insisted that the journalists had grossly twisted his words.

I wonder: If some journalists had claimed that Ky admired Mao Tse Tung, who murdered millions more people than Hitler murdered, would you be attacking him? After all, your praise of Mao is a matter of record in this forum. (I saved some of those posts, if anyone wants to see them.)

 

[Hector12]

If Ho Chi Minh would have won a fair election, why did he refuse to hold a fair election? Why did he refuse to hold an election under UN supervision but would only hold an election supervised by the Communist-controlled ISC?

mikegriffith1,

That is a good question. Please consider my answer.

When the First World was over, delegates from the victorious countries met in Paris to decided what to do to with Germany.

Ho Chi Minh traveled to Paris as the leader of a Vietnamese nationalist organization. The nationalist organization was not demanding independence for Vietnam. It was asking that the French stop being so tyrannical and exploitative in their government of Vietnam.

Most of the delegates ignored Ho. The only delegates who paid attention to him were delegates from the newly formed Communist dictatorship in Russia.

Regrettably, but understandably Ho became a follower of Vladimir Lenin, who was the newly installed Communist dictator of the Communist dictatorship that had recently come to power in Russia.

Unlike Ho, Lenin was unpopular in Russia. The Russian Revolution was not a popular revolution at all, but a coup by a well organized, well armed cabal of political fanatics.

Lenin had to rule dictatorially, so Ho thought he did too, but he did not. With the popularity Eisenhower later attributed to him he could have ruled as a democratic socialist. He should have allowed the election scheduled July 1956.

Moreover, Ho could have invited journalists from all over the world to come to North Vietnam to determine for themselves whether or not the election was fair and honest. Those journalists could have traveled around in North Vietnam and asked Vietnamese of all classes, both religions, and no religion at all, who they supported. The vast majority would have said they supported Ho, and intended to vote for him.

Ho could could allowed a loyal opposition. He could have allowed an adversary press. With no war to contend with he could have concentrated his efforts on governing well, and improving the lives for those living in North Vietnam.

While this was happening, Ho could have drawn international attention to how unpopular Ngo Dinh Diem was in the South, and the dictatorial methods Ngo was using to stay in power.

If Ho was more calculating he could have unified Vietnam under his leadership without a war. The fact that he was not did not justify our involvement in a civil war that should not have concerned us.

 

[Hector12]

This is patently absurd. This Communist myth was exploded during the Tet Offensive, again during the four years after Tet, and again during the 1972 Easter Offensive.

During Tet, the vast majority of South Vietnamese sided with their government, much to the shock of Hanoi's leaders. After Tet, popular support for the Saigon government increased substantially because the people got a firsthand taste of what life would be like under Communist rule.

If most of the South Vietnamese supported the South Vietnamese government it and the Army of South Vietnam would not have collapsed as soon as American troops withdrew from South Vietnam.

 

[Hector12]

I believe you're lying. Every single survey done among Vietnam vets has found that 70-92 percent said they were proud of their service in Vietnam, and that at least 70 percent said the war was an honorable, worthwhile effort.

Since I served 21 years in the U.S. Army, starting in 1982, I had the chance to speak with many, many, many Vietnam vets, and nearly all of them said the exact opposite of what you claim you heard from other Vietnam vets.

The same is true of the Vietnam vets with whom I've spoken since retiring from the Army in 2003.

You and I have talked to different War in Vietnam veterans. Most I have talked to told me the War was a colossal mistake. Several expressed contempt for the South Vietnamese. One bragged about atrocities he committed against South Vietnamese children.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If most of the South Vietnamese supported the South Vietnamese government it and the Army of South Vietnam would not have collapsed as soon as American troops withdrew from South Vietnam.

HUH??? South Vietnam resisted NVA aggression for over two years after U.S. troops withdrew. Furthermore, South Vietnam was holding its own against the NVA until the U.S. Congress slashed our promised aid to South Vietnam in 1974 and 1975.

You and I have talked to different War in Vietnam veterans. Most I have talked to told me the War was a colossal mistake. Several expressed contempt for the South Vietnamese. One bragged about atrocities he committed against South Vietnamese children.

Then you must have talked to the tiny minority of Vietnam vets who hold those views. Every survey done among Vietnam vets has found that the vast majority were/are proud of their service and supported the war. You might read B. G. Burkett's book Stolen Valor.

mikegriffith1,

That is a good question. Please consider my answer.

[SNIP]

Regrettably, but understandably Ho became a follower of Vladimir Lenin, who was the newly installed Communist dictator of the Communist dictatorship that had recently come to power in Russia. [SNIP]

Unlike Ho, Lenin was unpopular in Russia. The Russian Revolution was not a popular revolution at all, but a coup by a well organized, well armed cabal of political fanatics.

Lenin had to rule dictatorially, so Ho thought he did too, but he did not. With the popularity Eisenhower later attributed to him he could have ruled as a democratic socialist. He should have allowed the election scheduled July 1956.

While this was happening, Ho could have drawn international attention to how unpopular Ngo Dinh Diem was in the South, and the dictatorial methods Ngo was using to stay in power.

If Ho was more calculating he could have unified Vietnam under his leadership without a war. The fact that he was not did not justify our involvement in a civil war that should not have concerned us.

Most of this is total fiction, long-debunked Communist/liberal propaganda. You clearly have not read anything but far-left sources on Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Din Diem, the Geneva Accords, and the Vietnam War.

Read Dr. Lien-Hang T. Nguyen's book Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam to get a good idea of just how murderous and despotic Ho and Le Duan's regime was.

Regarding Ho Chi Minh's rise to power, Ho's alleged "popularity," the Geneva Accords, and Diem, I suggest the following books (all of which I've read):

The Road to Dien Bien Phu: A History of the First War for Vietnam (2022), by Dr. Christopher Goscha.

Ho Chi Minh: A Life (2012), by Dr. William Duiker.

The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam (2015), by Dr. Geoffrey Shaw.

Myths of the Vietnam War (1972), by Dr. Robert F. Turner.

Hanoi's Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (2013), by Dr. Pierre Asselin.

 

[Hector12]

HUH??? South Vietnam resisted NVA aggression for over two years after U.S. troops withdrew. Furthermore, South Vietnam was holding its own against the NVA until the U.S. Congress slashed our promised aid to South Vietnam in 1974 and 1975.



Then you must have talked to the tiny minority of Vietnam vets who hold those views. Every survey done among Vietnam vets has found that the vast majority were/are proud of their service and supported the war. You might read B. G. Burkett's book Stolen Valor.



Most of this is total fiction, long-debunked Communist/liberal propaganda. You clearly have not read anything but far-left sources on Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Din Diem, the Geneva Accords, and the Vietnam War.

Read Dr. Lien-Hang T. Nguyen's book Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam to get a good idea of just how murderous and despotic Ho and Le Duan's regime was.

Regarding Ho Chi Minh's rise to power, Ho's alleged "popularity," the Geneva Accords, and Diem, I suggest the following books (all of which I've read):

The Road to Dien Bien Phu: A History of the First War for Vietnam (2022), by Dr. Christopher Goscha.

Ho Chi Minh: A Life (2012), by Dr. William Duiker.

The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam (2015), by Dr. Geoffrey Shaw.

Myths of the Vietnam War (1972), by Dr. Robert F. Turner.

Hanoi's Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (2013), by Dr. Pierre Asselin.

The amount of financial assistance the United States gave the government of South Vietnam greatly exceeded the amount of financial assistance the Soviet Union and Communist China gave to North Vietnam.

The Communists won the War because the vast majority of the Vietnamese supported them. Don't argue with me about that. Argue with President Eisenhower.

If you have read all those books, express their arguments in your own words. If you cannot do that, you do not understand them. Whenever I am given a reading list I know I have won the argument.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The amount of financial assistance the United States gave the government of South Vietnam greatly exceeded the amount of financial assistance the Soviet Union and Communist China gave to North Vietnam.

The Communists won the War because the vast majority of the Vietnamese supported them. Don't argue with me about that. Argue with President Eisenhower.

If you have read all those books, express their arguments in your own words. If you cannot do that, you do not understand them. Whenever I am given a reading list I know I have won the argument.

Ike never said that and it is a fictional claim

You lost from the moment you started

 

[Hector12]

Ike never said that and it is a fictional claim

You lost from the moment you started

This page from President Eisenhower's Memoires, Mandate for Change, page 372, shows that he believed Ho Chi Minh would have won any free election in Vietnam in 1954. This is certainly why the U.S. did not permit such an election, though the Geneva Convention of 1954 required it.

I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the populations would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai

Selection from Eisenhower's Memoires

 

[AZrailwhale]

The amount of financial assistance the United States gave the government of South Vietnam greatly exceeded the amount of financial assistance the Soviet Union and Communist China gave to North Vietnam.

The Communists won the War because the vast majority of the Vietnamese supported them. Don't argue with me about that. Argue with President Eisenhower.

If you have read all those books, express their arguments in your own words. If you cannot do that, you do not understand them. Whenever I am given a reading list I know I have won the argument.

Are you kidding? China and the USSR totally supported the PRVN. They provided military and economic support that was vital to the PRVN’s survival. The proof of that is how quickly the PRVN signed surrender documents ending the war with no gains whatsoever once the USA under Nixon severed all the road and rail links from China and mined Haiphong harbor preventing the endless stream of Soviet merchant ships carrying everything from aspirin to SAMs. North Vietnam couldn’t even produce small arms ammo or despite being an agrarian country feed its own population. The actual dollar amount of the communist aid was probably fifty to a hundred times what the USA gave to the RVN. A single SA2 SAM probably cost over $100,000.00 and the Soviets gave the PRVN tens of thousands of them. An AK47 probably cost the Soviets fifty bucks to produce and they gave the PRVN millions of them. Plus hundreds of tanks, thousands of trucks, radars. The Soviets gave the PRVN 180 MiG 17s, 54 MiG19s and over a hundred MiG21s.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The amount of financial assistance the United States gave the government of South Vietnam greatly exceeded the amount of financial assistance the Soviet Union and Communist China gave to North Vietnam.

The Communists won the War because the vast majority of the Vietnamese supported them. Don't argue with me about that. Argue with President Eisenhower.

If you have read all those books, express their arguments in your own words. If you cannot do that, you do not understand them. Whenever I am given a reading list I know I have won the argument.

The communists LOST the war. They signed the Paris Peace accords that gave them nothing that they went to war for. They won the next war that they started several years later after receiving massive Soviet and and retraining,