Man oh man..talk about desperacy to save the American and Vietnam's face. China needs not worry about its face. We have been there and did what we needed to do and peed around the false flag democracy that was one present there. We have nothing to do with your Vietnamese people now. Your country was left for your people to deal with. You have only yourselves to blame if you cannot stand up by yourselves.
Of course you do, as evident now as you Chinese boys are working so very hard to hide the historical records that China was complicit in starting the Vietnam War.
Who was there to hold China's hand when we went through the hardships? It was non other than ourselves through sacrifice and determination. We are not the sour grapes here, in fact we are proud of what we Chinese people have achieved.
The Soviet Union was there to hold China's hand. China abandoned several thousand years of enviable history and submitted to the Kremlin's will, even to absurd science...
Lysenkoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Lysenko affair - The Lysenko Affair, Science, Philosophy and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union
Lysenko's most costly, even disastrous, biological experiments came toward the end of his career, when he caused severe damage to the dairy industry by breeding pedigreed cows with less valuable bulls, canceling the results of generations of careful animal husbandry.
China developed a Lysenkoist movement in the early phases of Mao Tse-Tung's rule. Between 1949 and 1956, a period in which Chinese leaders copied Soviet policies, Lysenkoism was the only officially sanctioned approach to genetics. Led by Luo Tianyu, a plant breeder in the Beijing area, Chinese Lysenkoism stressed populist and nativist themes, ascendant since the 1949 revolution, and won political favor more for these reasons that for any imagined contribution to agricultural technology.
Looks like some serious hand-holding to me.
Yes in other words the stance America took was obviously not in favour of Vietnam but rather to its NATO ally France.
This clearly mean you dispute the historical record that it was Ho who admitted France back into Viet Nam but you are too much of a coward to to come straight out and say so.
Here are some more uncomfortable facts for you:
Although President Roosevelt had wanted to see Vietnam under a United Nations trusteeship to prepare it for independence, at the Potsdam conference President Truman and British prime minister Attlee agreed to divide French Indochina at the sixteenth parallel, leaving China in control in the north and giving the British operational control over southern Vietnam. The DRV accepted this and welcomed British troops into Saigon in September. However, some dissenting Vietnamese Trotskyites were arrested and killed. The British then attacked the independence forces of the Vietnamese in order to restore to power the French colonial government in the south. The United States tacitly accepted French sovereignty over Indochina, and President Truman neglected to respond to several letters of appeal from Ho Chi Minh.
Yes...And I have pointed that out already. That 'acceptance' came only
AFTER the US as appraised of the news that Ho committed all Viet Nam, of which he had no right and moral authority to do, back to France. The Potsdam Conference was convened, by common sense and necessities, to establish control in war ravaged regions. Common sense, you do know what that is, no?
"1944-1947: Ho Chi Minh Reaches out to US; US Diplomats Note He Has No Direct Ties to Soviet Union Ho Chi Minh is leading the Vietminha popular movement of Catholics, Buddhists, small businessmen, communists and farmersin their fight for Vietnams independence from the French. He makes a dozen appeals to US President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee for help, insisting he is not a communist and suggesting that Indochina could be a fertile field for American capital and enterprise. He even mentions the possibility of allowing a US base in Camranh Bay. Likewise, US diplomats in Vietnam in their communications to Washington note that he has no direct ties to the Soviet Union and that he is a symbol of nationalism and the struggle for freedom to the overwhelming majority of the population.
And in no way did American reluctance back then to support the Viet Minh came from malice. Whereas Ho's willingness to commit all of Viet Nam back to France colonialism was motivated by a malicious desire to eliminate rival Vietnamese nationalists with French assistance. Let me guess...You do not believe there were rivals to Ho and the Viet Minh?
We are discussing about the time when China participated in the war, not after 1975. It was neither the problem of the US nor it was the problem of China after that. It was down to the way your people govern your country.
The boat people were refugees who either left due to political reasons or in the hope for a better living. Majority of them were from the South, although some from the north hopped on to the bandwagon. This was the result of the Vietnam war and Vietnam's revolutionary process, which cannot be blamed on China.
You disputed the North-South refugee flow during the war. So if you dispute it, then all you have to do is explain the 'boat people', which I found woefully inadequate, and that is just one example. I am not attributing the refugee problem to China. Although, Chinese abuses of the Vietnamese peasantry during the mid 1950s did motivated a lot of northern Viets to migrate down south.
Cam on nhieu nhe em Gambit,...
That should be 'anh' as most likely am old enough to be your father. In a non-familial conversation, the expressions should be 'anh-tôi' with 'anh' conferring respect to an elder while 'tôi' putting the speaker as a peer. Same for 'chị-tôi' or 'cô-tôi'. And 'không có chi', am always glad to educate anyone.
but nope, it was not what our boys were saying. We were saying that Americans backed the French colonialization and in the end they too wanted to have a piece of the cake.
Which you know by now that is not true. Now are you not glad you were educated by a Viet on this matter?
The Ho-Sainteny Agreement is probably the least known document regarding the Vietnam War and its causes. Ho spent time in France at the behind-the-scenes invitation from France via Sainteny. France did not chose Sainteny from drawing straws among the French diplomatic corps. There was a
PERSONAL relationship between the two men. Sainteny was a patriot to France but also a friend to Ho. The Agreement worked out for both men in that Ho would be able to solidified his position in North Viet Nam and Sainteny would be able to satisfy his obligations to France.
Is there any wonder why this personal relationship and the Ho-Sainteny Agreement would be suppressed by state propaganda machines in communist countries who supported communist Vietnamese? No need to have high IQ to say 'No', does it? It is far easier to turn attention to the more public political relationship between the US and France and to the public announcement that the US conceded Indochina to France when it was clear that the US did so only
AFTER being appraised by France of this back-door Agreement.
Martin Luther King, assorted commentators, and you Chinese boys got suckered...
Unlike China, our intention wasn't to colonize Vietnam, we were there to liberate. We assisted and we gave power back to the Vietnamese and North Korean people.
Liberate from what/who?
Colonizing Korea or Vietnam? I am afraid it never crossed the minds of the Chinese people.
Give me a break...China did not because China learned the hard lessons that she could not.
But in getting back to Viet Nam post WW II...The fact of American desire to have Indochina under UN trusteeship was
NOT kept a secret. Why do you think Roosevelt commented that the Brits and France would object? This mean this desire was made known to Chiang Kai-shek and Mao as they were contenders for China. Why would both men be ignorant of this desire when China was a victim of colonialism herself?
So if you swallowed the propaganda line that China helped 'liberated' Viet Nam, then answer the question: Liberated from what/who? Certainly not from the US as the US never had any colonial interests in mainland Asia and immediately after WW II, even less of a need since the US would be focusing on rebuilding its economy. France, on the other hand, is a different story and the US would be able to stand on a UN bully pulpit to pressure France to leave Indochina alone. The US had no reason to deviate from what Roosevelt wanted. The US might even arm the Vietnamese to stand against France. But with the Ho-Sainteny Agreement, all bets for a UN endorsed independence plan are off.
China is guilty of co-instigating the Vietnam War.
Oh.. that's something new! So America embraces communism too? Thanks for bringing it up. I guess the idea of communism is allowed there but forbidden elsewhere? This goes to show how lovely and hypocritically hypercritical America and the Western democracy really is.
Of course some American embraced communism. And there is nothing hypocritical about it. In America, the burden is upon the proponents of an ideology to convince people to its side. Do you have a problem with that 'convince' notion? Your original complaint and whiny implication was that communism is 'banned' or 'forbidden' in America, which I educated you that is not true. If the CPUSA is able to book a convention hall in New York City, then communism is not 'banned' or 'forbidden' in America. But I guess like all good communists, you and the Chinese boys here have a problem with persuasions and prefer a club to beat people into submission.
