The First Indochina War
2009 ж. 6 Шіл.
118 741 Рет қаралды
George C. Herring, emeritus professor of history at the University of Kentucky, lectures on "The First Indochina War, 1946-1954," as part of the W&L Alumni College titled "Vietnam: A Retrospective."
Ho Chi Minh worked with the US in WW2 and had good relation with US advisers in Vietnam. He sent a letter to Truman, which was never read or passed on.
More than one letter, maybe 6
Prof Herring gets it and presents the historical material and political perspective very well. I have ADH, but my attention never waivered. Look forward to more talks by the Professor.
In his autobiography, Colin Powell said something to the effect: "I can't help but think that if President Johnson had spent a quiet weekend at Camp David reading Bernard Fall's 'Street without Joy' or 'Hell in a very small place', they would have returned to the White House on Monday and tried to figure out a way out of the mess that was Vietnam." Kennedy HAD read the 'Guns of August' just before the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think maybe it saved the world. Can't get lucky twice in a row......
Jim Stanga but he may have studied the British experience there just after ww2, till they handed it to the French. Did you know that? most people do not, and the Brits were winning, but they constantly patrolled & fought. But the Brits also had an insurgency in Malay to deal with. Then the French wanted it back to win some sad respect. does Fall’s book even mention the Brits in Nam before the French’s?
depends who you ask j s
Vince White It starts with the French-Japanese conflict of September 1940 and goes from there.
Khrushchev is the one who did the smart thing and backed down. The Kennedy's were ready to start WW3. There were smarter ways to make Russia comply and JFK didn't try them, he was a hawk and history has glossed this over with dreams of Camelot.
@Stuart Donnelly You bet, you see, any conversation Kennedy would have had with the Russians about de-escalating the situation peacefully without threatening nuclear war would have been considered a 'smarter way.' Instead he immediately jumped to nuclear war as a means of 'dominating the situation' which is, almost by definition psychopathic. There you go Stu, one clear and glaring indication that there was rational leadership, but not on the American side.
thanks, great presentation
The G.M.s (Groupement Mobile) were designed as self-sustaining motorized regimental task force unit modeled after the U.S. Army’s World War II combat commands. The G.M.s typically consisted of three infantry battalions with one artillery battalion, along with elements of light armor or tanks, engineer, signal and medical assets, totaling 3,000-3,500 soldiers. group mobile 100 included the 1st and second korea battalions who had fought side by side with the us 2nd inf div in korea
Very informative lecture.
As an adjunct to this wonderfully insightful and intelligent lecture, I'd urge those interested to read "The Ugly American", a 1958 novel (and a good 1963 movie starring Marlon Brando) detailing our jingoistic arrogance in treating "third world" cultures as lesser states in desperate need to be "saved" from evil communism in order to reach the full fruits of Western-style democratic freedom.
Dân Chủ kiểu phương tây là dân chủ kiểu đem bom đạn tàn sát tất cả các quốc gia khác trên thế giới nên đất nước Việt Nam tôi không cần đến cái Dân Chủ kiểu phương tây các bạn nên đừng có mơ giấc mơ ảo tưởng đó
Sorry we do leave men Behind in WW1, WW2, Korean, & Vietnam wars ++. Surreal but true: Books: "Enormous Crime"-by Bill Hendon. Want proof see 12 documentaries videos my KZhead playlist. Book: Also 2-"Abandon in-Place" by-Lynn O'shea. Why abandon?: A) USA chief policy was 2 avoid a shooting war with USSR & Socialist, thus never directly confronted, & never when public (rather suppressed); B) technical knowledge. Soviets/North Korea Wanted prison labor, engineered-systems, and to (forcing r POWs at gun point to) reverse engineer our pilot's advanced planes. C) propaganda campaigns. D) $$ Embarrassment. Socialist planed to charge USA "reconstruction-aid" after war... defacto Millions per POW... ) demoralize the Armed Forces & agonized the US public by never returning all military POWS and unlucky civilians. Enraging! Supposedly The USA does not pay for hosteges, thus 🇺🇸 buried our Living POWS (from 4 Wars) & evidence. LOTS of foreigners, in all the 1900s, in the Gulag, (Boris yelson admitted 1992) forsaken by their (Western) governments! Depressing and Surreal!
In November 1952, General Salan decide to create a huge fighting camp in the Na San valley south of the Black river to block the two main invasion routes to the T'ai highlands. This camp will be manned by 12 French battalions, with an air strip and artillery. From the 2nd to the 4th of December, general Giap will through human waves after waves at the camp, (for example the PA 21 and PA 26 (point d'appuis) held by 707 Legionnaire will be assaulted by the TD 209 (3000 Bo Dois)
France depended on Mercenary colonial forces metropolitan French had to volunteer for Colonial duty..It was the Paratroop and foreign Legion who fought a criminal element..
yea i need to know too, for referencing. Was just going to out 2007...
Professor has fantastic delivery.
There is a French film called 'Dien Bien Phu' about the battle that from the extracts I have seen looks interesting, but when I looked into it had never been released with English subtitles nor dubbed. I regret my 'O' level de Francais (obsolete British school exam) passed 1979 is inadequate to follow the film in the original language. Perhaps it is thought that English speaking audiences would find the subject too obscure. However, several American films about the Vietnam War are quite well known even here in Britain where it was not our war, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter etc., so there could be some interest in the War's earlier French colonial phase.
petraus did use the ink spot stratagey but he also stopped the american blunder of communiting to war at first we were in large bases and went out during the day only to give up the land at night as we returned behind the wire.
thank you for the lecture I was born the day america signed away the south vietnamesse. I have been a student of this war and UW in general since I was 13.
Always nice to find sources on this war. Amazing how many people I mention this to and just get blank looks in return.
Great lecture. Viewed from France, Indochina is a forgotten war beside Dien Bien Phu. It was a rather archaic colonial war of course but additionally, it was fought by a limited number or professional military units (Legion, paratroopers...) very far from homeland. These units suffered heavy casualties, Dien Bien Phu being the culmination of course (about 10000 reads when taking the soldiers dead in captivity). Regarding the then french communist party, they were taking their orders straight from Moscow. I guess the reason behind their backing of the war was dictated by Moscow who didn't want anything to undermine the power of the communist party in France.
'The most fundamental rule of Vietnamese military science: in war, you must win' General Giap (pronounce the 'g' like the 's' in 'pleasure'.)
He did not mean to say, "In the fall of 1945 [sic] I took my first teaching job ... [etc.]". He was born in 1936!
If anyone in the US govt had paid the slightest attention to Bernard Fall. instead of living the myth of "American Exceptionalism" the whole conflict could have been avoided. US Army 65-68 Sgt E 5.
the battle footage is taken from a hour long documentary... cant remember its name... look up French language war docs... wow
The number of French nationals killed in action during 9 years Indochina war is less than French road casualties of 3 combined years (2001: 8,160 - 2002: 7,654 - 2003: 6059 road casualties ). According to official military historian figures (1955), French nationals suffered total of 18,015 casualties during 9 years Indochina war: these 18,015 casualties include combat and non-combat casualties (many French nationals died from tropical deceases and never saw combat). French Unions forces which included French nationals, African, North Africans, French Foreign Legion (non French national fighting for money) suffered 112,032 casualties. Most the losses were beard by non French national troops with 94,017 casualties: Local auxiliary forces, African, North African, Foreign Legion (mix of French nationals and non French nationals). French nationals fighting in Indochina were volunteers attracted by good wages made possibe by the French goverenment manipulating Vietnamese Piastre currency which was traded at 10FF (French Franc) for 1 Piastre (market price), and resold at 17FF for 1 Piastre at the 'Office Indochinois des Changes' (regulated at 17FF). This traffic was known as the 'Piastre Affair', the deal was made on the back of French tax payer, and attracted professional soldiers and businessmen in Indochina. The 'Piastre Affair' ended in December 1952, after French news paper 'Le Monde' published its article about the affair. One of the purpose of the currencey manupulation was to artificially increase French troops wages and make French import more competitive in Indochina. The 'Piastre affair is one of the main scandals of the 4th French Republic.
@@Fatyoshie234 Sad thing that French people need declassified documents to learn about their own history, it's only in 2013 that the story of Paris Liberation was spear headed by Spanish from the 2nd French Armored Division (2nd DB Leclerc): Spanish Republican fought in North Africa along their African brother in arms under the 2nd DB flag. There were not enough French white natives to send to Paris - ahead of the 2nd DB. So Leclerc send the 9th Company (the Spanish Company). see kzhead.info/sun/pqeNqs-heZ-DeY0/bejne.html .In 2013 only, did the French aknowleged the action of the Spanish and Paris got a garden dedicated to those Spanish who liberated Paris.
@@Fatyoshie234 Nonetheless, the armored vehicles surrounding Degauule, and which we see on most Paris Liberation pictures are the ones from the Spanish units (La Nueve). The pre-August 1944 white 'native' Free French were mostly North African, Moroccan, Syrian (French protectorate), Tunisian. Just remember that among 100,000 French troops who fled to the UK at Dunkirk, less than 10,000 remained in the UK and only 177 (Commando Kiefer) fought on D-Day: June 18th call by Degaulle was a desperate attempt to keep as many French troops as possible in the UK before 1940 armistice (June 22, 1940). Even Darnan choose Petain and the French WWII bloodiest battle day, involving French troops, was fought by the French against the British Navy at Mers-el-Kebir. At least the Vietnamese freed themselves on their own.
@@Fatyoshie234 1940 Franco-Italian War was from June 10 to June 15, it was a defensive war on both sides (same military doctrine for both France and Italy) which ended in a stalemate, no significant reinforcement were deeployed. French troops returned from the UK to to be interned in Germany, or join Vichy Forces to fight in Syria-Lebanon campaign along Italians and Germans (8 June - 14 July 1941). Among units involved in the Levant campaign there were Vichy Foreign Legion (6th Foreign Infantry Regiment) fighting against Free French Foreign Legion.
I m VietNamese, i know a litte bit English, but i can say that France sucks...
Does anyone know where the video shown is from?
Roots of a war, a television history, a PBS series. Part 1 of 11.
This reality took me a lifetime to understand. I'm born here in US, so I can get the "empire mentality we are used to". Nuf' said.
Used To?
From when is this? Approx, 2005? Because Herring doesn't know how to use a overhead projector.
The doc he showed on Dien Bien Phu was a little flawed in parts. The initial operation to take the valley and begin construction (Operation Castor - Greek mythological character not French for beaver as is usually mistaken) was a. a para operation (de Castries was cavalry and not a para), b. not 12,000 IIRC, and was not commanded by de Castries also IIRC. Also the narrator pronounces de Castries wrong. Best book on DBP is "The Last Valley" by Martin Windrow.
Agreed but Fall's DBP book is rather good. Bit dated in a few parts but it's Fall.
@@gilbertkohl6991 Yeah. Fall's book was THE definitive account of the battle... for decades. Windrow's book is just newer and better detailed. It's great - highly recommended.
The people, united, will never be defeated.
An important, edifying lecture, many of the details of which are filled out in my short, reader-friendly paperback AMERICA'S INDOCHINA HOLOCAUST: THE HISTORY AND GLOBAL MATRIX OF THE VIETNAM WAR.
@sheltercrow There was little american concern because as far as the american public knew there were no americans being killed there but 2 died at bien dien pho in 54 when the aircraft they were flying were shot down trying to drop supplies to the french.
@sass225 From underwear to howitzer, everything was US made. 2 B-26 US squadrons (with French marking) were deployed to bomb the VC at DBP, US deployed Flying Boxcars to resupply besieged French troops. US Aircraft carrier USS Saipan was supporting French logistic. All the French aircraft carriers were US carriers sold or donated to France by US or UK (Arromanche, Disxmude, Bois Belleau, etc...). More than 200 US technical crews maintained US aircraft flewn by the French (French didn't have the skills to repair and maintain US aircraft). All US support to the French is now declassified.
It was the first Vietnam war that America lost
Still cost the North V, who was footing the bill? USSR or China.
I've looked at several of these long Vietnam-themed lectures on this channel & all I see is old men in the audience. What a shame. One of the best books I've read about American involvement in Vietnam written from a Vietnamese perspective, is Le Ly Hayslip's 'When Heaven and Earth Changed Places.' Hayslip was born in Vietnam the late1940s & - until leaving Vietnam as a young woman - never new a time without war. She was betrayed by both VietCong & Americans.
Doesn’t mention the Brits going to Nam right after ww2 before French came back. Historians keep missing this. There are some on KZhead finally.
Ho Chi Minh a great hero
The vid claims to present history but stops short. In 1954 President Eisenhower said: "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh". But Ike was determined to stop the elections called for in the Geneva Conference. Few Americans remember that the US supported, armed, and trained the Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh from 1943 to 1945 as an ally against Japan and the Vichy French who brutally ran Vietnam in a loose alliance. Ho was hugely popular for exactly the same reason George Washington was popular. Few Americans know that under Roosevelt's Atlantic Charter signed by all the major Allies of WW2 the US demanded that European powers decolonize the world and support the independence movements like Ho's movement in Vietnam. Immediately after WW2 our leaders switched from backing Ho to backing the French, and in 1956 then created a thing they called "South Vietnam".
The only efficient way to keep a colony indefinitely is through distribution of smallpox infected blankets to the natives.
Thanh you ! Much vietnamese don't want to accept the trueth you give, especially the vietnamese living in US.
Traitors//
Sometimes a country standing on it's own two feet is to be commented.
It is an real lesson in history see it is niss
The North Vietnamese elite drew from millenia of SE Asian military strategies.
On 25 October, 1946 the only known evidence of direct Soviet involvement in the area came about, when a Japanese patrol captured a Russian adviser near Thủ Dầu Một. He was handed over to Lieutenant-Colonel Cyril Jarvis, commander of the 1/1 Gurkha Rifles at Thủ Dầu Một. Jarvis tried several attempts at interrogation,so the soviet union was involved from the begining
I can fully back up the claim of the guy from the audience who stated that the PCF was supporting the war. See Logevall 2013 if interested.
As one of the French Presidents said, 'the Parti Communiste Français leans not on the Left nor or the Right, it leans on the East'.
I think Vo Nguyen Giap should be recognized as the best general of the 2nd half of the 20th Century, as he defeated both the French and the Americans. If we had paid attention to the French defeat and not been driven crazy by anti-communism, we could have avoided our whole 20+ year disaster. Vietnam is today what we wanted it to become in the '60's, and all we did was to delay that accomplishment by 20 years.
I love your lecture . I am Vietnamese and living in Australia . I often read up about history of Vietnam . I often wonder why so many bigger country wanted to dominate VN China , French Japanese then USA . What is it that VN has that other country so desperately want ? We just want to be left alone! . In regards to the lecture . I would disagree with George when he said Vietnamese is good as waving the war but not good as rebuilding the country. We did not have a chance to build our country when we don’t even have a country !
And could I just say, I totally am with you[edit to add:]"Toothpick" and can see why you're bewildered. I can't speak for any other nations, but just to try to clarify how the US actually "works" insofar as overseas troops deployments and so forth: we do have limits, within the Constitution, here, as to how long and how indefinite a US troop deployment is or can be, in another, sovereign nation. We occupied two areas, the Philippines and Panama, but later [edit to add: ] LARGELY AT THEIR REQUEST, changed our legal positioning about those from "Protectorate" or "Territory" to that of independent nations. Other areas were determined by the fact that we either have RETAINED them as Territories -- again, at their REQUEST, since they have periodic votes on whether to go with Independence, Statehood or continue Territory status -- or, in the case of South Korea, co-occupy it as part of a UN Mandate, which involves dozens of other nations besides just our own forces. In the case of South Vietnam, the "paperwork" was never done, one might say, by the Saigon regime to "apply" to be a Territory. Rather, Saigon was ADAMANT that it was an INDEPENDENT NATION, since they had fought a long war to become that vis a vis France (and earlier bouts with China). SO, under our Constitution, there HAD TO BE A LIMIT AS TO HOW LONG US MILITARY FORCES WERE GOING TO BE THERE. And it HAD to be in cooperation, as much as possible, with the SITTING GOVERNMENT in Saigon. We weren't there to "take over" South Vietnam, AND we weren't going to just "abandon" the Saigon government without giving them, to the extent we could READ THEIR WISHES, an OPPORTUNITY to be such a nation of their own. PROBLEM: unlike Korea, where several nations agreed with us that the Demarcation should be more or less PERMANENT, virtually NO other nations agreed with us that North and South Vietnam should REMAIN DIVIDED. So, that put MOST of the onus on us, alone, (alongside some Aussie and Anzac troops, and some Filipino and Mexican medical staff personnel). We DO have a Constitution and we really DO try to go by it, although some of our Presidents haven't always behaved. Anyway, that's how it got so "complicated". To the extent Saigon put up the "chips" in the person of their little guys in the ARVN, to be TRAINED to fight, we trained them, armed them, and gave them the OPPORTUNITY to hold out. But there came a point where honesty in government, efficiency, and so forth, was REQUIRED, and that seemed to have been ENOUGH LACKING in Saigon to preclude them having an HONEST ARVN. I felt horrible as the whole thing collapsed, as did most of us Stateside. Nixon, for one, had been somewhat misleading as to how well the South was holding out, and how effective their military and government-- and therefore, our efforts in their behalf -- was (and perhaps COULD BE) actually doing. But the numbers game is what I've realized was where we were misled most by both military and civilian intel in both the Saigon government and DC. We would have STAYED, I believe, had the ARVN HELD at some key points [EDIT to add:] such as holding SOME of Pleiku Province, and holding the deep draft ship port of Da Nang, which was essential for re-landing US heavy artillery and tanks. [O]ur general staff had certain standards that they had a right to expect in return for any further expenditure of US boys'/young men's lives -- and ARVN being able to stand alone during that pitched offensive well enough to allow for [edit to add: such] a US redeployment was one. And that wasn't happening in 1975.
@@maxs1247 well you see, Max, after the Indochina war ,the Vietnamese did not understand why the American arrived to the south. I know it was because of the Cold War, communism etc… but if the US wanted to have a war with the Russian or Chinese then go ahead fight with them direct but why fight out with little people VN ? And picked on the Vietnamese . Again it is because the US underestimated the Vietnamese like the French did at Dien Bien Phu? Secondly, for the Korea do they want to reunite their country as one ? It is up to their will to make it happen? The west and east Germany did. They just knocked down the wall ! If you want something bad enough I believe they can make it happen may be lots of suffering . If they can do it liKe the German did then I commend them. No lives lost!
@@toothpick5932 thanks for your response and insight. Yes I think we went into the thing with a lot of racist and sort of fanatic anticommunist thinking ... Everyone was accused of being a "communist" if they didn't agree with Joe McCarthy and Nixon. We had developed much of the racist perspective about Asia that the old colonial powers had, but did change from that over time. But, by the time we did, Presidents Johnson and Nixon had sunk a lot of our gi's into Vietnam. But, once there for so.e much with over 200,000 troops, the generals said more were needed. Johnson began to ask how many more and wanted more on "enemy strength". That's when, in late 1966, he got the CIA report of how outnumbered ARVN was and WOULD BE. Tonkin had many more people than southern Annan and Cochin-China, so, more troops. So our general's answer was send in more GIs. But LBJ knew there had to be a limit, since South Vietnam was supposed to remain an independent nation and not a permanent Territory. It was then that LBJ sought the Peace Talks in Paris, to see how negotiable a coalition government would be. But Ho didn't see a need to compromise and he had been let down before in efforts to work with the West. And LBJ knew, after those CIA report numbers came in, that the odds were against ARVN. But then Nixon took the Presidency and missed the lessons LBJ had learned -- at first. He thought the numbers were more even, so had promised "Vietnamization" of the war, which seemed logical to an ill-informed public. But LBJ called him in, after he won the '68 Presidential election, and showed him those NUMBERS. They were bad news for Nixon's plan! But he simply carried on, as if he hadn't been told such shocking news, and said troops would be withdrawn as ARVN got trained. But, in reality, the goal was no longer training, but a much faster ground troop withdrawal along with the heavy bombing, which also had horrible atrocities for the poor little civilians there. Nixon at first thought that the bombing would even the odds, but even the generals said it wouldn't. And people HERE, ordinary people, were TROUBLED by the atrocities caused by the huge bombing raids and fire to poor people's huts. Our news reports showed it, and people wanted the troops home and the bombing to stop, and try to help people. Also, writers began to reveal to the general public here, how much Ho had helped us in ww2, and how much he had tried to work with the idea of elections. Anyway, if we had been more reasonable with him sometimes, rather than accusatory, many scholars here and in Britain felt he could have been persuaded to a socialist course with some financial help from the West. But so many here were inflexible and narrow minded. They couldn't see the actual situation Ho was in, trying to keep China from coming in. So, to fill the gap, he accepted aid from USSR with the strings attached. Yet, to those like Nixon, that "proved" he was a "hard line communist". Many here, tried to get through, but Nixon was set. Kissinger negotiated, but Nixon would undercut him and insist he make demands. Our military finally got thru to him, too, that our bombing only slowed, not stopped, the NVA. It was always the same "surprise" to the hawks, but not the doves, when NVA would emerge from the massive bombing in far stronger numbers than hawks thought they would, but doves knew NVA would because had trained Ho our own underground building techniques when he fought Japan alongside us in ww2. So, as years went by, people turned out Nixon's party from Congress and the others voted to cut off the funds after a certain time, as we, the people here, had learned the true good nature of Ho. I hope things can keep getting better for Vietnam and Asia. I'm so very sorry for all the poison and destruction to your nation. It was so wrong. We finally stopped Nixon. But so much tragedy had already happened.
Here is a link to the still-online at KZhead CBS News Special Report titled "The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception", of March, 1982. It is in 3 parts, this is part 1. kzhead.info/sun/g6qRhKeekGengH0/bejne.html
Right: we didn't have chance to rebuilde our country when we don't even have country. Now: 2021 , have goood look, people, what is going there in VN !
It seems as though he misspoke when he said he took his first teaching job at Ohio University in 1945. Either that or he’s extremely youthful looking.
The French commander for Northern Vietnam actually claimed victory after this most ignominious defeat.
Ignominious ? 57 days of fighting, 17k (10k personal) against 150k viet minimum. Show a bit of respect please
@@gringologie9302 At the time it was probably considered ignominious because it was the first time that a colonial power had been defeated. In retrospect I think it's recognised that the French union soldiers fought well (apart from the 3-4,000 deserters who managed to hide inside the camp). You numbers are a bit off. There were about 15,000 French Union troops and approximately 35,000 Viet Minh troops involved in the battle.
@@gringologie9302 Did you show respect for the Nazi? blah blah blah about the numbers If we ever had the same powers as the French, they would never ever have set foot on the Vietnam soil in the first place. And do you even understand guerrilla fighting mean?
Well, when you can building on anything that means, you should know how to tear downed, don't you think?
@ASIANBOYZPRODUCTION what are you talking about the vietnamesse trained during the indo china war were on the french side many veits were. what your confused about is that during ww2 the oss sent a small unit to train viet minh to fight the japanesse fdr was in vavor of giving the veitnamesse there indapendence he was against colonialism
,
@sass225 and will hold due to artillery and air support). After two bloody days for the Viet Minh, Giap gave up, and (unfortunately) the idea of massive fighting camp to engage and defeat the enemy was born in the French High Command strategy. The French in 54 fully expected a reapeat of the hedghog defense and to inflict massive casulties on the viet minh but at the cost of public opinion not many french captured ever saw france agian
🙏👌
@HelloWorld394, yes i do agree with you, howevever lets not forget what that map of southeast asia looked like before the europeans came aka british and french who split southeast asia in half for themselves. vietnam was one of the collaboraters as well, u bought guns off the europeans and pushed the other kingdoms back, then after u did their work as their dog smashing and thrashing the other (mainland) south east asian countries u expected the europeans to be on ur side but in truth they used you and you used their weapons to bash your only true allies. afterwards thats when they came to little resistance, because you were used as their meatsheild to weaken the other kingdoms that might have protected you and thats when you became a colony, again...then all of south east asia basically falls under european control, atleast until shortly after ww2. but yes before this the chinese used vietnam as colony to get into south china sea, ps vietnam give cambodia back it's shit....not only did the king of cambodia let u into cambodia when vietnam was smaller than cambodia, but u had the nerve to steal cambodian land which they took care of this whole time, but then after stealing it you called the international community to turn it into a international preserve....but vietnam... cambodia took care of that land this whole time... should they not be recognized?
@oneinteligentmuslim Veitnam was a french colony for 80 years. the american public is not imperialist at all. ho chi minh and vo nugyn gaip were both educated in the french system the first communist party ho joined in 1920 was the french communist party
Mitch McConnell’s cool brother
Why did you find "little concern" in the American press about the French-Indochina war? An imperial power does not air the dirty laundry of another imperial power. Especially when you're both trying to present yourselves as champions of freedom and democracy in a war patently denying the same right for another. That nasty business of colony retention (one you've armed and aided) is just not good press.
HOW is Hello in Native Red ]’ndian
You were born 50,000 years ago?
He was born in 1936....doubt he finished his PhD in 1945 and started teaching....at age 8.
British in Vietnam in 1945 worth a mention Operation Masterdom
Had your PhD in 1945? Did ya?
@yourselff900 They cared, they suffered a lot of losses trying to retain it. Many French citizens though, especially communists, do not care though. Or outrightly betray their country and armed forces. You should read some books.
The assertion of "war weariness" with regards to the Iraq conflict is at the very least an unsupported assertion. What stings vets about this easygoing nonchalance is that it disingenuously implies that the civilian public somehow "shared" in the sacrifice. In a sense by claiming civilians can become "war weary" off these "small wars" the lecturer implies then that the public has somehow put "work" into the conflict. This my definition was never the case. Indeed such willy-nilly assertions are not fair to veterans of those conflicts. Their opinions developed during the actual conflict and not while shopping at the GAP. I point to the (in)famous Bush era directive to "keep shopping". The nonchalance pervading the public as a whole is hard to stomach. How can a Joe or Jane Public claim to be "war weary" when they did nothing?, When none of the kids in their neighborhood got drafted?, And when none of them gave up anything? Now all this is something, but it is most certainly not "war weariness".
In other words, you don't understand the concept at all. So you just make stuff up to argue against. And I'm sure it "stings" the troops that the public don't wish to send them off to be killed or maimed for no good reason.
cinesimonj I beg your pardon what exactly is your point? Your dismissal of my opinion, which was formed after years of service, part of which was spent in the desert, is exactly the dangerous tendency on the part of the public that in the end often necessitates the deployment of additional troops! Now in the past the public might have legitimately claimed "war weariness". During the great wars is the last time this was possible. When families sent drafted loved ones off to fight and those left behind endured rationing, restrictions, and bought war bonds. Yet this is not the case for small unpopular wars in the desert. Quite the contrary to your mistaken impression, the attitude you exhibit, and which is falsely claimed by the speaker in this video, is the same sort of political calculus that integrates the law of unintended consequences. Rather, what I am saying, is the troops have a much more intimate understanding of what exactly is "the national interest" as defined by the civilian administration and the public. It easy enough for the public-at-large, history professors, and others to ignore the part they play - as individual citizens - in the statecraft of their nation. It is categorically impossible for military members to do so. You may not like it, but you as a civilian, by your own choice, do not have to endure those sometimes dissonant choices. And this alone is my point. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim you are "war weary" - as you drive to the mall with petrol in your tank from some unknown, nameless refinery. On the other hand troops marching about in the desert with rifle and 50 lbs worth of gear on back are indeed weary and tired at the end of the long day. There is more, much more, to the concept "war weariness" then calculated political rhetoric. Feel free to ignore my opinion, it is after all just one, but please reflect on how that tendency to ignore the warrior-class as magnified by institutions of higher learning, produces a political climate that is prone to panic and emergency and that in the end the choices made my civilians and popular opinion often entail sending the troops, even if such individuals are "anti-war". Civilians can ignore such "cognitive dissonance"; However, troops walk that mind-scape and in that sense only they can become weary of the war in the public's own mind - even if that public refuses to admit their own part they played.
From a French perspective, I find it quite satisfying that Mr Herring, while being unequivocal about his criticism of French presence and fighting in Indochina, doesn't fall in for the usual misconceptions about France. As he rightly points out, France was trying to recover from the humiliation of its 1940 historical defeat by holding to its past glory, namely its colonial empire. The US were at the peak of their power and prestige and totally neglected the lessons of the Indochina War, because they already considered France as a second rate power. What happened to the French couldn't happen to America. What a failed opportunity to learn from others' mistakes.
......and then France suffered a more humiliating, bitter defeat at Dien Bien Phu, and the superpower America, 20 years later, also stepped in the footsteps of the French....
@oneinteligentmuslim I mostly agree; few Americans know French history in Vietnam or history in general. But I disagree that 90% of Americans have imperialist minds. In my view, the US gov has imperialist mindset, but most Americans seem to view US interventions not as imperialist but rather as actions necessary on the basis of national or global security. I've read this described as a successful case of "perception management". In other words, propaganda. One may even call it mass delusion.
America had its own bent on colonisation and has a record of brutality and indifference in obtaining its own empire.
I think you forgot to mentioned that France used former Nazis for a large fraction or the foreign legion forces or that even the french communist never got over their colonial dreams.
He completely neglects the "insurgency" taking place in British Malaya as part of the milieu generating US attitudes.
I haven’t seen much about it but surely the US learned some of it tactics in the Philippines where we had been fighting an insurgency since the end of the Spanish American War.
Too bad American leaders didn't feel compelled to do what the artillery commander did and take the honorable way out and spare us. Maybe McNamara's mean culpa would have been received a bit better if he'd done that at any point during his life.
Even though French pulled out of Indochina, they already took and stole most of the gold and silver from Indochina. USA then wanted the opium and weed that's why they came to the country. It's all dirty wars in Indochina (Southeast Asian).
@Stuart Donnelly Yes. But then they were run by the USA government. US governments were just Mafia Operating as soldiers in SE Asia. It's sad that many of our loved ones died during this stupid war.
48:52 "in the united states the media impact on the war was negligible" - this guy really doesnt know what hes talking about.
More French died in Vietnam than Americans. Yet when people think of Vietnam they think of American failure?
scott gorham Which had a bigger impact on the home country? The US is huge. It could have lost a million men and not faced a very big domestic change, France on the other had, well .... just look at World War 1 or 2.
+David n +scott gorham Only French NCO and offcers were fighting in Indochina. French constitution forbade draftees to fight oversee: French draftees are there to defend France from the Germans (poor Frenchies lost so many times since 1870...). During continental war colonial troops are used as canon fodder to defend the motherland: sub Sahara Africans, Algerians, Moroccans, Malagesi (Madagascar) , Vietnamese fought for France during WWI. Vietnam which had issues feeding her own people under colonial regime, had to even send food and money to France and help France fight the Germans during WWI. There are many monuments built in France to honor the Vietnamese soldiers: the main one is a Buddhist temple at Nogent -sur-Marne. In Indochina troops from other French colonies were fighting for France: 60% were sub-sahara African (West and East Africa), the others were Moroccan Goumiers, Algerians rifles, Tai, Vietnamese, Laos, Europeans (professional Foreign Legion). The French didn't have helicopters but had expendable colonial troops: just canon fodder equipped with US weapons. Nobody ever complain when they get killed by droves, because nobody care, they were not French. All French aircraft carriers were US or UK aircraft carriers renamed with French names Bois Belleau (was USS Belleau Wood), Arromanches (was HMS Collossus), Dixmude (was HMS Biter). Air planes were all US. From underwear to howitzer, French colonial troops were fully US equipped. Navy aircraft pilots were trained by UK and US instructors. Bomber technical support was supplied by the US: B-26 mechanics. Mono place airplanes maintenance was trained by the US. Without the US, the French colonial troops wouldn't even be able to start any campaign in Indochina. As during WWII, the French spent foreign blood and wasted foreign equipment for their own gain: it's funny because Free French who liberated France were mostly Muslims.
Hi, it is estimated that 4-7 million Vietnamese perished in the war, on top of the cultural revolution America went through as a cause from this war, also Agent Orange affecting everything from the environment to the people of Vietnam. So whether you wanna call the war with the French or Americans more important, the truth is that the sheer death and destruction caused from the latter is a lot more significant.
+Stephen I was correcting the wrong figures quoted by David n. The French carries the responsibility of between 400,000 to 2 Millions Vietnamese during 1945 Vietnamese Famine (one single year). France imposed Opium monopoly (since 1881) intoxicating the population: there were 2,500 opium dens - much more opium dens than doctors, 80% of Vietnamese people were illiterate at the end of colonization. Almost a century of slavery was established to destroy the Vietnamese society without success. Out of any war, French colonization reclaimed million lives: 17,000 Vietnamese civilian slaves died in the single Michelin plantation between 1920 an 1939, pregnant Vietnamese women were beaten for getting water during work-time. Same poor living conditions prevailed in mining, construction, agriculture, etc... Until today, French journalists negate this reality and use any occasion to remember "so-called Vietminh war crimes" hiding the crimes of their colonial troops. You should research what the French troops did in 1947, massacring 100,000 civilian inhabitants of Madagascar. Same French troops were later deployed in Indochina.
Man that is F'd up. Maybe one day this world can live in peace
People need to travel. If you stay on a same place forever, you must be dumb. Please travel. Don't get brain wash. Thank you so much Mr. Professor.
The Indochina War started when France try to reclaim as their colony by sending French warship starting with the bombardment on the city called Haiphong, Vietnam on Nov. 23, 1946. Killing 6,000 local Vietnamese civilians and anger an entire coumtry. Vietnam emperor Bảo Đại was a French puppet, who was loyality to the French. United States Democrats President Truman who did nothing to stop France reclaiming Vietnam and rejecting Ho Chi Minh letter of support as their colony but offer support to France re-colonize Vietnam. United States who value the independent and freedom from Great Britian. But deny another country of their own. America is Not a democracy country but a Republic country. And the word Republic is said on America "The Pledge of Allegiance" speech
Pity it was never once said in this pleasant presentation that the Vietnamese, if they generally dreamed of independence, were divided almost from the start as to the political colouring of this independence. Not all the Vietnamese wanted to walk under Uncle Ho’s red banner, especially after 1949, when it became increasingly clear that Maoist ideology and class struggle was taking over the Vietminh movement.
Yes, they rather walk under the monarchy of Bao Dai who lived in France and basically a puppet. Or better yet, Ngo, a dictator who spent way too much time in France and knew nothing about religion and culture of Vietnam. Pity, even now, with all the documentations available. If you like, I rather you invent a time machine and go back there and pick up a gun for your ideology and die fighting it. Then posting useless narratives. Pity. Do you think the "viets." Whether they are Maoist or "freedom lover" had any said at that Geneva conference among the giants that of the UK, USA, USSR, and China? The world powers played chess over a bleeding vietnam. Do you think any of these foreigners gave a d*** about what the Viets really want? If that is your view, then you should totally cheer on that election that supposed to hold post Geneva. And it can be oversee by the Americans. And then, you can see who the Viets would vote for. Pity, we didn't end up seeing such an election due to the USA cancelled it.
The US President then Eisenhower thought differently. Read @jeffmoore9487's comment above to open your eyes.That's why US sabotaged election in 1956,reason the Vietnam War broke out. The result is still the same as the election!
Trying to overturn mr hitlers doctrine. Ooch.
The French Army was largely mercenary...Algerians, Senegalese, Foreign Legion etc. France was never committed and nor should they have been. It was a lost cause from day one. NO western power, much less the US , had ANY idea at all of Vietnamese history.
when I read all the comments on many sites, I read only nonsense about the French war in Indochina, so I ask historians who know nothing about history to read books on the subject, books written by soldiers who lived through this war and you will stop saying idiocy. read books about the Viet-minh concentration camps and you will see the suffering of the soldiers prisoners, 70% of whom died of starvation and abuse. You will understand the cowardice of the French governments of the time (all left-wing socialists) who abandoned the elite of its valiant fighters who died for nothing or rather for the interests of financiers and the same for the American war that followed that of the French
Aye, and the million of Viets starve to death before that because these brave selfless Frenchie pull rice out of Vietnam to fund their world war. Had the French stay in France. They could have been celebrate as helping the USA beat back the USA. But no these valiant self less, brave Frenchies wanna die in a foreign land to save face that the Nazi whoop them so badly. And when the Japanese came knocking, they surrender Indochina to them. Nahh, those brave, loving Frenchie must show the world that if they can't beat the Nazis, or the Japanese, at least they need to pick on people's their own size. Those starving farmers.
Go and invent a time Machine. I wish you the best of luck to take control over the Empire of France. Only noble soul like you suit to send young brave French to go kill a bunch of starving farmers. And then all can die in a foreign land. Only Jean Paul is noble and informed enough for that.
Saigon is all commercialized, capitalism !
conclusion: the asean people are not like the african americans and the native americans... vietnam is in the asean lands... that has 3 great civilization-states (termed by a speaker in one china analysis)... namely, india(seat of spiritual gateways), china(empire of abacus/ trade & four seasons/nature), sons of the sun warriors japan... with a china sworn-brother, the great alien nation(russia asean locality say muskowa)... unfortunately, cia-whitehouse is a persistent & heartless people... north vietnam, north korea, cuba... this time around is afghanistan that seems to have 5 to 6 factions of different values & principles... one of the seemingly 5 to 6 factions is the taliban who might be the said number one (first degree) xenophobic ... try probing afghanistan also... thank you...
george you tried hard but wrong on to many points but thís lecturer ís 10yrs old
It's not very sporting to say someone did something wrong but neglect to point out specific examples and provide a counter argument - especially when it's done in a way that doesn't reflect credit on to the communication skills of the person doing the criticizing.
A compelling subject spoiled by the lecturer’s condescending tone and complete inability to use modern presentation technology.
The American historian's condescending tone makes objectivity disappear from the lecture on the US-Vietnam war
Classic lying by omission: The good professor leaves out that Hồ Chí Minh was backed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the USSR. This is why Nixon made his famous trip to China, to end the war by getting Communist China to stop supporting the war, while also negotiating with the USSR to stop supporting the war as well. It was always the CCP and USSR backed communists in the north who attacked the the Vietnamese in the south. In fact millions of Vietnamese fled the north to get away from the communists to live in peace in South Vietnam. This had nothing to do with “independence”. Quite the opposite: Hồ Chí Minh was TOTALLY DEPENDENT on Communist China and the USSR.
The _CIA_ ejected the French from Vietnam- nobody else at the time could have accomplished the *total destruction* of the French Foriegn Legion in sixty days like that.
The French as a nation with any sense of loyalty , morality or dread the thought being grateful for their liberation has been totally lacking since WW1. 66 whole days to collapse from the german 1940 invasion, always blamed on politics and inept generalship , absolutely true but after the losses from the great war that gutless country has relied on colonial troops and the foreign legion to do 90% of the heavy lifting. Other than the legion thats no longer an option , and thatvis why this wannabe a great and important nation is a total ungrateful joke. The only ones with any pull in that country is the communist dominated unions. On two trips to France the rustic food of the countryside and out of the way provinces was superb , the pretentious overpriced plating of Paris sums up perfectly the delusional importance of them on the world stage
They allowed the French to spearhead Lybia recently. Is there a sly suggestion that history can, once again, lay blame at the favourite White Flaggers in a few decades?