NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=15&u=/ap/20050427/ap_on_re_as/vietnam_uncle_ho

Ho Chi Minh, far from the warm-hearted, fuzzy, lovable old fart the left portrays him as, was in real life a genocidal, Stalinist tyrant and instigator of one of the bloodiest and most controversial wars in history. And yet, the people of Vietnam- brainwashed by endless propaganda- still rever him. To learn about the real Ho Chi Minh, read Death by Government by R.J. Rummel (who estimates that the North Vietnamese are responsible for up to 3,700,000 deaths, of which approximately 2,800,000 were Vietnamese), Deliver Us From Evil, by Dr. Thomas Dooley (who personally treated many of Ho's victims), The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror by Douglas Pike; How We Lost the Vietnam War by Nguyen Cao Ky; American Opinion, February 1968; American Opinion, May 1968; American Opinion, January 1969; United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 8; Newsweek, May 15, 1967; Time, December 15, 1967; Reader's Digest, November 1968

The man led his people to victory against the French and the Americans. Of course he's admired. It's sort of like when the rest of the world lambasts the US for admiring Ronald Reagan ... we simply don't care, do we?

Why should the Vietnamese not admire their great leaders? They're the ones there, ya know. This isn't some leftist conspiracy. It's the people of Vietnam admiring their great leader. Let them.

Like he said he did lead them against the japanese and frenach and americans but i doubt the truthness of the artical seems like a bunch of cold war spin i mean in ww2 he fought the japs and was a peasant leader so I don't think he was a genocidal leader bringing hundreds of thousands of people to death camps like the artical implies so like i said before its probly of left over cold war spin wait ten years and see if people say the same thing

Like he said he did lead them against the japanese and frenach and americans but i doubt the truthness of the artical seems like a bunch of cold war spin i mean in ww2 he fought the japs and was a peasant leader so I don't think he was a genocidal leader bringing hundreds of thousands of people to death camps like the artical implies so like i said before its probly of left over cold war spin wait ten years and see if people say the same thing
Nah, he was a genocidal fuck. However, that doesn't mean that people won't revere him for what he did (you know, the nongenocidal part).

Nah, he was a genocidal fuck. However, that doesn't mean that people won't revere him for what he did (you know, the nongenocidal part).

Oh I dunno ... people still admire Andrew Johnson.

Everybody loves a winner. 'xept the loser.

I suspect his purging of dissidents in North Vietnam in the late 1950s isn't exactly common knowledge in Vietnam. All the public is taught is that he led them to victory against the French Colonialists, and laid the ground work for the "liberation" of South Vietnam from the "puppet" government of South Vietnam and the Yankees.

In his defense, he did beat not only the US but also the French, and unified the country, which isn't a very common occurance in Vietnamese history (it was generally 2 to 3 countries depending on the era). So thats what they remember.

Later generations may have a different view.

How on earth did I misread Ho Chi Minh as Pol Pot >. >

Go Chi Minh! Whoot! :mp5: :mp5:

The man led his people to victory against the French and the Americans. Of course he's admired. It's sort of like when the rest of the world lambasts the US for admiring Ronald Reagan ... we simply don't care, do we?

Why should the Vietnamese not admire their great leaders? They're the ones there, ya know. This isn't some leftist conspiracy. It's the people of Vietnam admiring their great leader. Let them.

Hmm...Good point. They say the victims of Stalin's purges cried out for him to save them, thinking he was simply unaware of the abuses. When he found out, they thought, they'd be saved.

Great leaders are forgiven just about EVERYTHING by their followers. Up to and including treason, genocide, mass-murder. A lot of it has to do with education, and "re-education". The US is certainly no exception.

Oh I dunno ... people still admire Andrew Johnson.
Jackson was the genocidal one. Johnson just sucked.

Great leaders are forgiven just about EVERYTHING by their followers. Up to and including treason, genocide, mass-murder. A lot of it has to do with education, and "re-education". The US is certainly no exception.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point more clear. Sometimes words escape me.

It's sort of like Cortez being celebrated as a great explorerer, rather than a murderer.

Or Columbus as a great discoverer, rather than a slave monger.

Or Andrew Johnson as a great President, rather than a genocidal maniac.

I think much of it comes from what seems to be a global culture of "Let's not speak ill of the dead".

I wonder how history will look on Hitler in, oh say, 300 years.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point more clear. Sometimes words escape me.

It's sort of like Cortez being celebrated as a great explorerer, rather than a murderer.

Or Columbus as a great discoverer, rather than a slave monger.

Or Andrew Johnson as a great President, rather than a genocidal maniac.

I think much of it comes from what seems to be a global culture of "Let's not speak ill of the dead".

I wonder how history will look on Hitler in, oh say, 300 years.

Well Hitler lost, so history will probably continue to vilify him. Only the winners are looked upon with radiant, shining glory.

Are you sure you don't mean Andrew Jackson? The guy who slaughtered the Seminoles and forced the Cherokees off of their land?

Are you sure you don't mean Andrew Jackson? The guy who slaughtered the Seminoles and forced the Cherokees off of their land?


Him, too, actually, but the worst of the worst for the US was under Andrew Johnson. After the Civil War, people were really itching to shoot at someone.

Technically, though, the Indian Wars began in 1540 with the Spanish invasion, so the US can't be held liable for beginning that war ... only finishing it.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point more clear. Sometimes words escape me.

It's sort of like Cortez being celebrated as a great explorerer, rather than a murderer. Or Columbus as a great discoverer, rather than a slave monger. Or Andrew Johnson as a great President, rather than a genocidal maniac.

I think much of it comes from what seems to be a global culture of "Let's not speak ill of the dead". I wonder how history will look on Hitler in, oh say, 300 years.

Not a problem, I was just piggybacking on the strength of your post anyway.

Indeed, many great men are forgiven their transgressions in light of their achievements, real or imagined. However, remember that history also has its "Villians" that are reviled and hated throughout thousands of years.

Nero, for one; still fiddles as rome burns. The first Emperor of China is still revlied as a horrible for the burning of the books and the burying of the scholars. Many men who were undoubtedly more than just simple fiends are hated for their misdeeds, imagined, overexaggerated, or real.

I for one, belive that speaking ill of the dead is fine, but not at the time of their funeral. Ronald Regean had some seriously flaws as a president, but both the attempts to dieify him and to revile him seemed more like pathetic political attempts to marr a MAN and his life.

Hate this sin, but not the sinner I guess? Hitler is occasionally portrayed as something other than a demon from the bowels of hell, and I think that's important. Humans are capable of being like Hitler, we must be wary that the capacity for good is matched by our capacity for evil.

One person's killer is another person's hero.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=15&u=/ap/20050427/ap_on_re_as/vietnam_uncle_ho

Ho Chi Minh, far from the warm-hearted, fuzzy, lovable old fart the left portrays him as, was in real life a genocidal, Stalinist tyrant and instigator of one of the bloodiest and most controversial wars in history. And yet, the people of Vietnam- brainwashed by endless propaganda- still rever him. To learn about the real Ho Chi Minh, read Death by Government by R.J. Rummel (who estimates that the North Vietnamese are responsible for up to 3,700,000 deaths, of which approximately 2,800,000 were Vietnamese), Deliver Us From Evil, by Dr. Thomas Dooley (who personally treated many of Ho's victims), The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror by Douglas Pike; How We Lost the Vietnam War by Nguyen Cao Ky; American Opinion, February 1968; American Opinion, May 1968; American Opinion, January 1969; United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 8; Newsweek, May 15, 1967; Time, December 15, 1967; Reader's Digest, November 1968


Diem was no picnic either, you know.

Ho Chi Minh died early. He basically just lived to fight the war and what was done during the war was done to win the war. They won didin't they? Last time I checked Hanoi was the capital of a UNITED socialist Vietnam.

Vietnam is in my opinion one of the nicer dictatorships in recent years, victimwise. Chinese and US supported Pol Pot's Cambodia is the worst. They killed people wearing glasses!

Well the vietnamese will maybee start dislikning their own old leaders and stop disliking the USA well the deaths and injuries from Agent Orange stops...

Ho Chi Minh, far from the warm-hearted, fuzzy, lovable old fart the left portrays him as, was in real life a genocidal, Stalinist tyrant and instigator of one of the bloodiest and most controversial wars in history. And yet, the people of Vietnam- brainwashed by endless propaganda- still rever him. To learn about the real Ho Chi Minh, read Death by Government by R.J. Rummel (who estimates that the North Vietnamese are responsible for up to 3,700,000 deaths, of which approximately 2,800,000 were Vietnamese), Deliver Us From Evil, by Dr. Thomas Dooley (who personally treated many of Ho's victims), The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror by Douglas Pike; How We Lost the Vietnam War by Nguyen Cao Ky; American Opinion, February 1968; American Opinion, May 1968; American Opinion, January 1969; United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 8; Newsweek, May 15, 1967; Time, December 15, 1967; Reader's Digest, November 1968

Thanks for this post.

I recently bought Rummel's "Death By Government" and I'm reading the chapter on Vietnam. It's great info, which I have never seen in the mass media or even books on Ho Chi Minh. But when it comes to US military atrocities, look out! I also have some of Dooley's books which I will now make time to read. I read the article by Jasper you posted the link to. Also great info and good points.

We never hear about any of this in documentaries on the subject.

I recommend the chapter on Vietnam in Alan Stang's book "The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles". It shows that Dulles was a socialist all his life, posing as a conservative (as is the case with many US conservatives) for his career as a Republican Secretary of State.

Dulles chose Ngo Dinh Diem and pressured France to put him in charge in South Vietnam. Diem put former communists, some of whom had worked under Ho Chi Minh, in top positions in his government and had communist friends and relatives.

Stang also documents that Dulles allowed the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu by the communists, without which there would have been no division and war between north and south.

Dulles also was behind the formation of SEATO, a para-UN regionalist grouping for south-east asia. One of the reasons for the Vietnam War was to involve the US in another war under the obligation and control of a foreign/international body instead of Congress, as it was in Korea.

The man led his people to victory against the French and the Americans. Of course he's admired. It's sort of like when the rest of the world lambasts the US for admiring Ronald Reagan ... we simply don't care, do we?

Why should the Vietnamese not admire their great leaders? They're the ones there, ya know. This isn't some leftist conspiracy. It's the people of Vietnam admiring their great leader. Let them.

Right, just like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Like the Vietnamese were given a say in it. Read the sources before you comment on them.

Ho killed all other Vietnamese nationalist leaders and many of tens of thousands of Vietnamese in his terror campaigns. The French occupation was just an excuse - and an obstacle to his own rule.

Right, just like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Like the Vietnamese were given a say in it. Read the sources before you comment on them.

Ho killed all other Vietnamese nationalist leaders and many of tens of thousands of Vietnamese in his terror campaigns. The French occupation was just an excuse - and an obstacle to his own rule.

Mate you're a couple of years too late.

^Too late for what?

^Too late for what?

The buffet. All that's left is some mouldy bread that's gained sentience, a machine gun arm, and a healthy disregard for human life.

Like he said he did lead them against the japanese and frenach and americans but i doubt the truthness of the artical seems like a bunch of cold war spin i mean in ww2 he fought the japs and was a peasant leader so I don't think he was a genocidal leader bringing hundreds of thousands of people to death camps like the artical implies so like i said before its probly of left over cold war spin wait ten years and see if people say the same thing

The article by Jasper says Ho didn't genuinely fight the Japs, actually betrayed other Vietnamese to them and collaborated with them for money and supplies. Similar story with Mao in China - retreated to the north-east to let Chiang Kai-Shek fight the Japs so that he would be weakenned as an opponent later on.

Ho wasn't a peasant nor was his family. His father was a district magistrate and Ho recieved a good education, and later travelled abroad to a number of countries. He spent time in France and Russia (training) and was one of the founders of the French Communist Party. Read his bio at Wiki.

Rummel's book gives 56 pages, 4 of them bibliography of sources, documenting what Ho did to the Vietnamese.

Your remark about "cold war spin" implies that the "cold war" was made up by anticomunists. Guess you don't read much. "Cold war" has been over already for more than ten years. Why do you want another ten?

If it were "cold war" spin it wouldn't just be Jasper and Rummel saying it. If anything the "spin" in the popular media has favoured Ho's communists. Was it "spin" when people talked about what Stalin did? What about the things they are finally saying about Mao in the popular media now? Why should Ho, who was backed by the Soviets and the Chinese communists, be different?

The buffet. All that's left is some mouldy bread that's gained sentience, a machine gun arm, and a healthy disregard for human life.

English, Doc.

English, Doc.

I have to complement you on a most massive grave dig. I don't think I've ever seen anything revived after 4 years of lying dormant. 90% of the people who originally posted in the damn thread are deleted...

^The issue itself is still relevant and not just for the people who posted in this thread four years ago. Therefore I have revived the discussion. It wasn't dead and buried.

No dude. This is deader than Micheal Jackson.

^No, it's just that nobody has intelligently discussed it. Someone will be along soon. History is never dead.

. History is never dead.

Maybe not, but this thread is.

I suspect his purging of dissidents in North Vietnam in the late 1950s isn't exactly common knowledge in Vietnam. All the public is taught is that he led them to victory against the French Colonialists, and laid the ground work for the "liberation" of South Vietnam from the "puppet" government of South Vietnam and the Yankees.

In his defense, he did beat not only the US but also the French, and unified the country, which isn't a very common occurance in Vietnamese history (it was generally 2 to 3 countries depending on the era). So thats what they remember.

Later generations may have a different view.

Ho didn't beat the US, the US government (and media) did. (Read Jasper's article "Seven Myths".) Ho was not alone, he was backed by the Soviets and the Chinese (and the US government and media). In France Socialists were in government at the time the were combatting Communists in the north.

I don't see why Vietnam necessarily needed unifying. Definitely not under Soviet imperialism. Ho just exchanged French colonialism for Soviet imperialism. The Vietnamese themselves remember the brutal oppression of the regime, which came after the "liberation". It is we in the west, thanks to our media, who remember the "liberation" - we didn't hear about the oppression.

Oh I dunno ... people still admire Andrew Jackson.
Fixed. And not in spite of, but because of, his genocidal actions.

^The issue itself is still relevant and not just for the people who posted in this thread four years ago. Therefore I have revived the discussion. It wasn't dead and buried.

This forum is basically dead, and the few of us who are left aren't really here for the debates.

lol @ ho chi minh minh

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=15&u=/ap/20050427/ap_on_re_as/vietnam_uncle_ho

Ho Chi Minh, far from the warm-hearted, fuzzy, lovable old fart the left portrays him as, was in real life a genocidal, Stalinist tyrant and instigator of one of the bloodiest and most controversial wars in history. And yet, the people of Vietnam- brainwashed by endless propaganda- still rever him. To learn about the real Ho Chi Minh, read Death by Government by R.J. Rummel (who estimates that the North Vietnamese are responsible for up to 3,700,000 deaths, of which approximately 2,800,000 were Vietnamese), Deliver Us From Evil, by Dr. Thomas Dooley (who personally treated many of Ho's victims), The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror by Douglas Pike; How We Lost the Vietnam War by Nguyen Cao Ky; American Opinion, February 1968; American Opinion, May 1968; American Opinion, January 1969; United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 8; Newsweek, May 15, 1967; Time, December 15, 1967; Reader's Digest, November 1968
They are brainwashed, so don't expect them to know the truth. How can they what they have not been told?