Talk:First Indochina War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main resources

On both first and Second Indochina Wars, take the whole work of Bernard B. Fall. http://www.jfklibrary.org/fa_fall.html Takima 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest to use Pierre Schoendoerffer's works instead since HE is an Indochina veteran and HE was at Dien Bien Phu and filmed the battle, he was captured by the Viet Minh -his life was spared because of Soviet propagandist Roman Karmen-. Unlike Fall or others US university teachers who never wore uniform and write books about something they never had contact with for real. Schoendoerffer in the opposite is a witness as he was in the vietnamese jungle and filmed battles for real. He made a documentary about the U.S. vietnam war (Section Anderson) and was awarded in the US for this. His realistic direction inspired both Apocalypse Now and Platoon (The 317th Platoon). His docudrama Dien Bien Phu (with official support form both armies) is an alike of Tora! Tora! Tora!. In other hand I would suggest to use different sources to get crossed views. I made US and French newsreels available for both the French and English articles here. Archive newsreels are useful to understand the real background and policies since POVs have drastically changed -according to foreign relations- since the 1940s. Hope it helps Cliché Online 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

'Italic textĿŏúĘ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.138.157 (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cliché Online you should know that Bernard B. Fall fought in the French resistance and later in the French Army in WWII before becoming a Professor and expert on Indochina. He was killed while on patrol with US Marines in 1967, so I think your comments about him are incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

US Involvement

There has been some discussion about the US--or at least parts of public opinion and even parts of the establishment--actually being against helping former colonial powers regain control of their former colonies. I will see what I can find in my copy of the "The Pentagon Papers".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:32, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The U.S. as a matter of policy rejected colonialism and imperialism, since it was seen as unsustainable in a world where major world powers can have the snot kicked out of them by a neighbor country the size of Montana. However, the Viet Minh was seen as a Moscow puppet organization, bent on bringing Vietnam under Soviet domination. As we all know, the U.S. was vehemently anti-communist in it's foreign policy, so it was in our "interests" to help France in Indochina since a colonial French authority was seen as a better alternative to a Moscow-backed Vietnamese one. -- The KoG | Talk 21:15, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we can suss out a truly coherent American idea on this point. Generally the point that iFaqeer makes was most evident in the Western Hemisphere, where the Monroe Doctrine prevailed -- the US was then both anti-colonialist and self-protective. In other parts of the world, it didn't hold. The US had just given up the Philippines itself! I think it's best we stick to the documented facts here, which speak for themselves, rather than going POV on what the US may have intended or should have met its word &c. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. Did I give the impression I was pushing a POV? -- The KoG | Talk 13:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
No, you gave the impression that the train of thought you described/expressed was already in existence. My point was what Dhartun says; that it was exactly during this period—between the end of WWII and the start of America's direct involvement in VN—that this policy was forged/came into existence.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:42, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Thank you for clarifying that. -- The KoG | Talk 00:37, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Disregarding the politics of the time (not that they were not important) i dont understand how in this section the USA is described as having "an inherent oppostion to imperalism" whilst "helping colonial powers regain their empires". isnt this a complete contradiction? seeming though solid evidence of the official stance taken is lacking, should this not be removed entirely anyway? --AnRK 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
when did the Domino theory was used please? back in 1954 about what? about the goddman first indochina war!! US was deeply involved everybody knows it, they did there just as they did before during the chinese civil war and the korean war, now stop telling bullshit please. 2 US pilots were dead at dien bien phu this is certified and the remaining pilots were honored by france in 2005, in other hand the russians were in too (as well as the chinese) and gave hundreds of trucks to the viet minh as seen here. well i think it closes the discussion and this insane hypocrisy of yours. Shame On You 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To do list

This is my first participation in a collaboration. Should we be setting up a to-do list, posting items in this discussion area, or just start editing and see what happens? A good documentation site on the history of the Vietnam War is http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam.htm. It includes the Pentagon Papers (which is identified as a public-domain U.S. government document), the 1954 Geneva Accord, etc. The Geneva Accord set up a "provisional military demarcation line." No where is the word "partition" used, and the accord is clear that the military cease-fire line was to be regarded as a temporary line until elections would be held. --Sentience 21:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome! A to-do list is probably superfluous and would be quickly overtaken, as it were, by the editing process. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can create one—it will only be useful if you and/or others keep it current. COTWs can be fast and loose.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

First (and only) picture in the article is not neutral. suggesting it is replaced Tridungvo 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Some images from the Library of Congress are available here. They appear to be public domain. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 06:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I'm curious about the display of Gen. Trinh Minh The's photo. He was not a major player in the First Indochina War but an officer in the private army of the Cao Dai religious sect in southern Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.210.184 (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

History of Vietnam text

I imported the History of Vietnam text, which is immeasurably better than what we had here (most POV about Ho Chi Minh's own desires/overtures, and badly bollixed in terms of time narrative). There are still some problems, though, and I'm ready for bed! The issue of how much territory the Viet Minh actually controlled after September 1945 is crucial; I don't have that handy. Clearly by 1950 it was more substantial, but I didn't think that the guerrilla movement was that successful until after the Bao Dai installation. I've got Karnow's history of Vietnam (which is not just about the "Vietnam War'< but has whole chapters on the 19th century colonization) on the bookshelf, so I can hopefully work that to our advantage. But mainly we have nothing in that text speaking to the progress of the war, major battles, etc. which is really what this article should be about. (When it's good enough, we should trim the text in that source article and point here, of course.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A couple of questions

Second paragraph:

The Viet Minh, experienced in combat against Japanese troops, launched a rebellion against the French.

A couple of thing could be added to give the reader more information; answers to questions that came to mind as I read it

The Viet Minh, experienced in combat against Japanese troops [during WWII?], launched a rebellion against the French [who were occupying for what reason, since when?].

-- Tarquin 23:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The article says all of the French forces were volunteers. Are you certain this is correct? I recall reading a book on Dien Bien Phu where the author (forgot his name and the book`s exact title unfortunatley) said a large part of the French troops there were Alerian colonial troops and I have a hard time beliving they could be volunteers, esspecialy considiring the fact that it was claimed in this book that morale in their units was lower than in units of French nationals or Legionares.


Most of the french forces were volonter,all the non parachutist that jumped on Dien Bien Phu were volonter however it perfectly posible that algerian colonial troops were conscript garnisoned in Dien Bien Phu before the battle and I am pretty sure some elite coloniale troops had better morale than some french national regiment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.185.127 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is fair to add that the units that arrived in Dien Bien Phu after the first French attack and before the closure of the airstrip were not specially volunteers. All the ones that were air dropped after that were volunteers that actively requested to jump (despite the well known fact that the battle was already lost). Please remember that there were also some units of prisonners, dubbed the "Nam Yum rats". They were used for menial jobs and some of them in combat, with recorded cases of brave fight from their part. They were obviously not volunteers and their fate was probably even worse (if that's possible) than the French troups that were captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphast (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This area seems to contain two seperate points. First, it seems to be a highly questionable statement that the Viet Minh were experieced in combat against the Japanese. Though the OSS is said to have made contact with the Viet Minh towards the end of WWII, I have never seen any records or reference to the Viet Minh actively resisting. Much like the Chinese Communists, they appear to have sat out WWII and then taken advantage of the post-war vacuum. They also seems to have assimilated and then destroyed other nationalist groups that were fighting at the time.

The second is the nature of the French Union Forces. The French Colonial forces were made up of French volunteers and volunteers from the Colonies, Algeria, Morocco etc. They were not conscripted. The local soldiers who fought were also volunteers and the Rats of Nam Yum were not prisoners who were dropped into Dien Bien Phu, they were soldiers from a number of units who deserted their units during the fight for Dien Bien Phu and refused to fight. If my memory serves me, they were primarily from two Tai battalions that cracked early on in the battle. The Foreign Legion was a separate entity.Traveler99 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Vietnamese patriotism

Go to my work on the French version I re-write in French. I can still put the original in AmericanEnglish here. In many interviews, Pham van Dong has pointed out clearly the fact that French colonial repressions and prisons have turned nationalists to communists. I can put the Declaration of Independence written by Ho Chi Minh with the help OSS Detachment 101 Major Archimedes Patti to put the order of liberties in the same way as in the US Declaration of independence with the eternal words of Thomas Jefferson.

Takima 03:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

North and South of Viet Nam

North and South of Viet Nam (not geographically) came only after the Genva Accords of 1954 to regroup the French armed forces in the South for total evacuation from all Indochina in 1955 and the Vietnamese armed forces from all Indichina (including Cambodia and Laos) in the North. The war of Independence was all over French Indochina, including Cambodia and Laos.

Let's be serious and not confused.

Takima 04:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins

I am french so I apologize for my english which is far to be perfect :) In this comment, I will try to add some details to the "Origins" paragraph.

During the summer 1945, some nationalist demonstrations took place in Hanoï. Their demands were not accepted by the french authorities. Those movements were led by the Viêt minh which is the league for the independance of Viêt-Nam (the "Viêt-nam Dôc Lâp Dông Minh") created on may 1941 after the Tsin Tsi congress.

Next, Hô Chi Minh proclaimed the independance of Viêt-Nam (not of Laos and Cambodia)on September 2, 1945 - the same day the Japaneses surrendered. But, as the french governement did not want to let Viêt-Nam to become free, the "2ème D.B." of General Leclerc was sent in Indochina. General Leclerc landed on ocotober 5, 1945 at Saigon and began with the "corps expéditionnaire français d'Orient" to reconquer the Cochinchina and the South-Annam. Actually, it was done fast; four months. Therefore, Hô Chi Minh had to negotiate with French, and particularly with Jean Santeny. On march 6, 1946 the Hô Chi Minh-Sainteny Accord (a.k.a. Fontaineblau Accord)agreed to Viêt-Nam an autonomy in the "Union française" (French Union). However, it was a matter of autonomy under the french domination and not of independance, but Hô Chi Minh accepted it.

Yet, the french settlers of Cochinchina, with the support of Amiral Thierry d'Argenlieu ("haut-commissaire de la France en Indochine") declared the independance of Cochinchina what HCM refused it. Then, HCM set about french settled in Annam and Tokin. Next, d'Argenlieu retaliated by the bombing of Haiphong (a east-Indochina-coast city) from the "Suffren" warship. It caused more than 6,000 deads (on november the 26th, 1946). HCM riposted again by killing french who lived in Hanoï on december 1946. So that, the war began on december 1946.

The war was led with all the indifference of French who considered Indochina as a colony far, far away. China became communist on october 1, 1949 and supported Viêt minh so that since 1950, U.S.A. helped France (weapons...) in a context of Cold War. Yet, after the French (Grl De Castries)defeated by Viêt minh (Grl Giap) at Dien Bien Phu battle, France lost the hope to win. So, the end of war is signed on july 1954 by the Genève Accord. It gave the independance to Laos, Cambodia and to Viêt-Nam(s) which is divided in two by the 17th parallel line.

First Indochina War was Cold War !!

  • A lot of false things have been said in America and France about this war, this "dirty war" was a taboo. Now the truth is being told in France, i think it's time to update your old American view about the conflict using modern sources. Relying on a single man's own POV (Bernard Fall - 1966 book) for a such important and vast period covering two wars is not serious (where's the neutrality? where's the overview?) and a big mistake!! This article has no source except a single book submitted by a Vietnamese person who also did the author's article (with all due respect sir Takima).
  • The USA have financed 80% of the First Indochina War, supplying money (400.000.000$) and war material to France (uniform, helmet, rifle, tank were all US). 60's US trooper? no 50's French! | Douglas Dakota in Nam? No Dien Bien Phu!
  • The Chinese gave weapons and Russian gave money to the Vietminh.
  • Denying "Cold War" is modern US hypocrisy. This particular conflict was both a "Colonial" and "Cold" war. The French were named "the only rampart of the Free World against the evil of communism" by the US government at this time don't forget it.
  • The US government has supported the French the same way it did before with the South Koreans, as a way of stopping the Red expansion in South-East Asia. Korea War and Indochina war were biaised conflict between the USA and the USSR will you dare telling this is untrue?
  • The French used US Douglas Dakota supply airplanes while the Vietmihn used Russian AA cannons.
  • Operation Vulture (Opération Vautour): US B-29 raid was planned at Dien Bien Phu to save the French soldiers, the US president did accepted the French proposal of dropping the bomb (this solution is a déjà vu in the Korean War!) but Churchill refused (to save the soldiers from the backeffects of the bombs and to maintain the upcoming Geneva Meeting) so the Vulture Operation was cancelled at last.
  • Fifth column support to the Vietmihns in France with the communist activists (students strike and "union des femmes françaises"' sabotage were all communists)

EnthusiastFRANCE 18:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The source for "80%", "400 millions $" and the American supply quoted in the American involvement paragraph is the "Diên Biên Phu, chronique d'une bataille oubliée" (Dien Bien Phu: Chronicles of a Forgotten Battle) 2004 documentary written and directed by Peter Hercombe and produced by Transparences Productions. It features French & Vietnamese armies archive footages and veteran interviews. It was broadcasted on the French national TV "France 2" the 4th of May 2006.
  • "mercenaries"? The French force was made of regular soldiers from the Légion Etrangère, parachutiste etc.
  • Bayonet fighting in the trenches of Eliane hill not even mentioned in your article.

EnthusiastFRANCE 18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people may want to re-write the history that historians have written, but Wikipedia is not the place to do this--'original research' is excluded. The articles on the Cold War and Category:Cold War do not include the First Indochina War in the Cold War for the reason that it was a colonial/anti-colonial war. The facts you lay out does not change that: warring parties always week help from about where ever they can. The current First Indochina War article include statements about the fears of the U.S. government regarding communism and how this led the U.S. to pay a large part of the war in its later years. More could be said somewhere about how John Foster Dulles tried to turn the First Indochina War into a Cold War battleground and also how the French government was not interested in this, as it feared America (with its anti-colonial opinions) might change the war direction into something other than the French government wanted--a full re-establishment of their colonial rule. Whatever the ideas and hopes of Dulles and others like him does not, however, change the facts of the war.

If changes are to be made in this article stating the First Indochina War was part of the Cold War, the place to start is with the wiki articles on the Cold War and their underlying references. Whether or not the Cold War Wiki editors will accept such a change, remains to be seen. This can be discussed on the Cold War talk pages. Hmains 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • "Some people may want to re-write the history that historians have written" yes and this what some Wikipedians have done so far with denying the Indochina War as part of the Cold War. I don't want the History be rewritten by the Reds. History is not set for eternity as new discoveries are made showing unseen aspects and denying others. Ho Chi Minh was seduced by communism when studying in (Metropolitan) France, all he wanted to do was to lay down a communist autonomous regim over Indochina. This political aspect makes this War was not only a simple independence war (like the Algeria War was) but a Indepedence/Cold War mixed particular conflict. Also there were Vietnamese who were French-loyalist and who fought with the French against the communist Viet Minh, this an historical fact that must be mentioned as an evidence that this conflit was political. What do you mean by "original source?" In the antiquity period some stories were told as the truth, while there were later demonstrated as fantasy myths carrying sense (meaningful) but not the Truth. "I worry that my son might not understand what I've tried to be. [...] Everything I did, everything you saw, because there's nothing that I detest more than the stench of lies". Kurtz in Apocalypse Now EnthusiastFRANCE 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why U.S. involvement then?

As much as I disagree with much of the tone and argumentation of the French Enthusiast, he is correct that the First Indochina War must be viewed as part of the incipient Cold War: from whatever way you look at US motives for assuming the financial burden of France's fight, whether to reinforce French support for the EDC or out of fear of Communist China, the view from Washington was part of the Cold War paradigm, particularly after the success of the Chinese Communists in 1949; the New York Times called Indochina "the Greece of the Far East", as clear a contemporary Cold War reference as you could ever hope for. By 1954 the United States was paying for 78% of the French war effort and Eisenhower considered taking over militarily from the French if they fell at Dien Bien Phu.

If the First Indochina War is not mentioned in the Cold War section then that is an oversight that needs rectified - no serious scholar of the Cold War would accept the view that the First Indochina War was not a component of the Cold War.

If you need further information on this see in particular Mark Lawrence Assuming the Burden, Odd Arne Westad The Global Cold War and a new volume being published soon by Fred Logevall and Mark Lawrence, The First Vietnam War: Colonial Conflict and Cold War Crisis Cripipper 05:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmains' view is made more explicit on the "History" of this article than on his unsigned answer (I've added his signature later to make it clear): "First Indochina War NOT was Cold War however much some wanted it to be." However, again, History cannot be set by a single man, this is the way of Totalitarism not Democracy. Denying "Operation Vulture" and the US monetary involvement is pure hypocrisy and a try to rewrite the History.
  • I apologize if my tone can sound like "aggressive" or something like that, but this is the tone of a man who feels betrayed, all i want is the truth to be said, nothing more, nothing less than justice to the deads. EnthusiastFRANCE 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional evidences taken from the US Air Force Magazine article (aug.2004):
    • "USAF B-26s loaned to France [...] still wear the nose art they carried in Korean action, mere months before." (History repeating itself)
    • "Washington wanted to help. The question was how far President Dwight D. Eisenhower would go to prevent a communist triumph at Dien Bien Phu." (you'll notice the significant use of "communist triumph" instead of "independentist triumph") EnthusiastFRANCE 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cold War

See Wikipedia:No original research. As I said, this should be taken up in the Cold War articles, not here. And the point of Wiki is NPOV, not attempting to push an agenda from whatever direction that may be, not Red or Anti-Red or anything else. The tone of some comments here seem to be agenda pushing. I also fail to see why 'Reds' would be interested in denying the First Indochina War to be part of the Cold War, if that were the case. What would be their individual or collective motivation in doing so? Sounds like unfounded conspiracy theory, at best. Thanks Hmains 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmains - could you please clarify what you believe is an unfounded conspiracy theory? And could you further elaborate on what leads you to believe that the First Indochina was not part of the Cold War? Had the United States not been funding the French war effort then it could reasonably be excluded from being seen as part of the Cold War, but that is not how history played itself out. I have provided sources to show that it is viewed within the Cold War scholarly community as being part of Cold War history. What more do you want? Cripipper 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • My sources for "80%", "$400 millions", "US Helmet, rifle, uniform, tanks", "Bayonet fighting in the trenches", "Operation Vulture (w/B-29, H-Bomb and Churchill)", "The French were named the only rampart of the Free World against the evil of communism by the US government", "The French used US Douglas Dakota supply airplanes while the Vietmihn used Russian AA cannons". are reliable and legitimate as already told before (BTW Cripipper seems to have used different sources but agrees with mine):
    • (The source for "80%", "400 millions $" and the American supply quoted in the American involvement paragraph is the "Diên Biên Phu, chronique d'une bataille oubliée" (Dien Bien Phu: Chronicles of a Forgotten Battle) 2004 documentary written and directed by Peter Hercombe and produced by Transparences Productions. It features French & Vietnamese armies archive footages and veteran interviews. It was broadcasted on the French national TV "France 2" the 4th of May 2006)

These are original sources in any way, so you cannot accuse me to not follow this Wikipedia rule:

    • "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say"
  • I agree to follow up this talk in the proper section. However, I would like to quickly answer your questions before moving. Since you're asking what motivation, here's one perspective: because it legitimates ("unlegitimate": because there were non-communist & French-loyalist) the communist take over of Indochina disguising this political (ideological) conflict under an independence (ideal) war, which is a far more legitimate battle (internationally acceptable) gathering more popular support than a fight in the single name of communism. Also i understand some Americans don't want to be associated with the French in this war, which was both lost and imperialist (unlegitimate) in a certain point of view. But the truth must be told, whatever it's dirtiness. The French Wikipedia classify the Indochina War as part of the Cold War ("Guerre Froide") as you can see (i didn't worked on it but Takima did for a large part including the source author articles, remember what i said about so much power in the hands of a single man...). EnthusiastFRANCE 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to bias toward making this war part of the cold war which I don't think is true. The war started in November 1946 with the bombardment of Haiphong, while the cold war is considered to start in 1947. I removed a sentence in the US involvement section which is used for this bias.

It looks to me like the US was lied into the conflict by the French (by making the US believe that French tried to fight communism instead of recolonizing Indochina to milk it a few hundred years more. In fact, it was the increasing support of the US to France that forced the Vietminh to seek alliance from the USSR who was counter part of the US at that time). There used to be this info from an interview with former Secretary of State Dean Acheson (but it was removed): "The French blackmailed us. At every meeting when we asked them for greater effort in Europe they brought up Indochina and later North Africa. One discovers in dealing with the French that they expect their allies to accept their point of view without question on every issue. They asked for our aid for Indochina but refused to tell me what they hoped to accomplish or how. Perhaps they didn't know. They were obsessed with the idea of what you have you hold. But they had no idea how to hold it. I spent I don't know how many hours talking with the French about the necessity of getting local support for what they were trying to do. We told them about our success in training Koreans. We offered to send Americans from Korea to help train the Vietnamese. But the French refused. They wanted nothing to detract from French control. We urged them to allow more and more scope to the political activities of the Vietnamese. They did not take our advice. I thought it was possible to do something constructive with Bao Dai -- not much, but something." from [1]

From what I see, someone seems to rewrite this article to make people believe that the real loser of this war is also the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.58.85 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

combattants

the french expeditionnary corps in far east did not fought alone but was backed by vietnamese (viet minh were a minority), thai and cambodians and the us flag should be here too, us CAT pilots died at dien bien phu. and there were no mercenaries but regular armymen. you are not neutral. Cliché Online 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

number of viet minh soldiers

how can the minimun number of viet minh soldiers be minimum 63 000 when over 100 000 were captured? i understand there is a possibility of capturing soldiers more than once, but the number 63 000 is way to low and improbable. Tridungvo 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because prisoners taken by the French and said to be Viet Minh were often civilians.

SGGH speak! 16:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the number of viet minh soldiers, I read they were 267,000 regulars in 1952, more than 100,000 regionalls and 250,000 militias. (clems78)

you cute americans!!

"it was bearing 80% of the cost of the French war effort. U.S.involvement did not include use of armed force, a source of resentment by the French Army, who believed it had been promised air support and supplies for Dien Bien Phu from cruising U.S. carrier" this is lies! the us was deeply involved in the war against communism! all uniforms and aircrafts were lend-lease by the americans!! and the flying crew was american! official evidences are known [2]. how can you lies that way?! Shame On You 14:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) the following subsection was censored from the dien bien phu article:

Anti-communist US backup

File:Hm2dbpCannon.jpg
US-built HM2 105mm heavy mortar, some of them were dropped by CIA crews. (Dien Bien Phu, 03.1954)

US Air Force General Chester E. McCarty was in charge of the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air) assistance. He commanded supply operations at Dien Bien Phu. A hundred aircraft, transports (C-119 Flying Box, Dakota DC-3) and fighters (F8F Bearcat), used a few months earlier in the Korean war campaign, were leased to the French and used at Dien Bien Phu. Also, Admiral Arthur Radford gave orders for training national army paratrooper battalions and sent hundreds of airborne maintenance personnel as part of a Cold War Lend-Lease program. In November 1953, USAF General McCarty loaned twelve C-119's to make possible the French aeronaval Operation Beaver and the taking of Dien Bien Phu.

File:C119-takeoffde CatBi 27marsDBP-paulcorcuff.jpg
US C-119 taking off from Cat Bi (Hai Phong) to supply Dien Bien Phu (27.03.1954)

Thirty-seven American pilots flew over Dien Bien Phu with Civil Air Transport company Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar, taking off from Haiphong's civilian airport (Cat Bi Airport) and supplying their French allies with artillery pieces, ammunitions, barbed wire, medics, food, etc. During the siege, 682 airdrops were completed under heavy artillery fire including Soviet-made Katyusha rockets, famed in World War II as Stalin Organs. Ten days before the siege began, a contract was signed with the CAT for twenty pilots operating twelve C-119's loaned and maintained by the USAF but flown under the French tricolor insignia.

On 13 March 1954, as the Dien Bien Phu airstrips were destroyed by the outnumbering and outgunning Viet Minh artillery, the contract terms were ignored and more American pilots joined the French crews, taking part in supply missions. Two of them, Lieutenant James McGovern, and his co-pilot Lieutenant Wallace Buford, were shot down by the Viet Minh artillery and MIA 6 May 1954. They were trying to drop a cannon to the besieged artillery (declassified in 1982 [3]. Retired World War II veteran (Flying Tigers) Major-General Claire Lee Chennault's CAT (Civil Air Transport aka Air America) airline was secretly owned by the American Central Intelligence Agency until it was declassified in the 1990s ([www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/801098/posts source Associated Press]).

On 25 February 2005, fifty years after the events, seven remaining American CAT pilots officially received the chivalry order Knights of the Legion of Honor, in the name of the Fifth French Republic President Jacques Chirac, in recognition of services rendered to France (source: Embassy of France in the USA).

In the last days of the siege, the US Navy USS Saipan supplied napalm-equipped Chance Vought AU-1 Corsair fighters, moved from Yokosuka to Tourane (aka Da Nang), to support the 14.F Aéronavale Flotilla. The French Aeronaval Arromanches carrier located in the Tonkin Gulf assisted Dien Bien Phu troops with napalm dropping (Hellcat raids) and heavy bombing (Privateer) over Viet Minh positions. The aeronaval fleet was made of diving bombers Curtiss SB2C-5 Helldiver (3.F Flotilla "Crescent & Star"), fighters Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat (11.F Flotilla "The Seahorse"), heavy bombers Consolidated PB4Y Privateer (28.F Flotilla "The Black Wolf Head") and fighters Chance Vought F4U-7 Corsair (14.F Aeronaval Flotilla "The One-eyed Corsair").

"Tonight, we are going to celebrate the courage of these pilots who accomplished numerous missions over Dien Bien Phu with their Flying Boxcars which were C-119s mistakably called “Packets” by the French, as well as the crucial contribution of the United States at a difficult period of the French history, the siege of Dien Bien Phu which lasted 57 days from March 13 to May 7, 1954." [4] truth will be known anyway! all these facts are sourced, they were removed from the article. Shame On You 14:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

so what who will ignore these facts now? Shame On You 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

it lacks french allies flag

british always have the commonwealth flags, the french must have their colonies flag too. troops fighting in the anticommunist side along the french empire's far east expeditionary corps were Laos, Cambodia, loyal Vietnamese (like the BAWOUAN paratroopers batallions) -hence it wasn't a "vietnamese victory" in any way but a communist "viet minh victory"!-, and United States of America! the first us soldiers killed in vietnam died at dien bien phu in 1954. this is an acknowledged fact. [5] Shame On You 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC) the chinese and russian supported the viet minh with equipment, weapons, vehicles (molotova trucks used instead of bicycles like narrated in the communist propaganda! the picture of the 308th Division parading on Soviet trucks -not bicycles- in Hanoi 10.10.1954 took from a vietnamese site was censored too! and stalin organs aka katyusha rocket launchers). the chinese sent officers to train the viet minh, but this ain't as far as the french allies support. Laos, Cambodia and Thailand sent batallions to fight at dien bien phu! units name are known like Thai Battalion #2. and the americans were involved through the CIA. Shame On You 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shame On You, I have no idea what's going on with Talk:Dien Bien Phu, and since I can see by your contributions that you are capable of making good edits, I ask you to abide by assumption of good faith. If you don't drop into articles and yell loudly that an inaccuracy you find is a "lie", perhaps you could make your case more effectively. Certainly, you shouuld not be suggesting that missing information is the result of prejudice, unless you have evidence of a particular editor removing cited information, and even then there are more appropriate ways to address it. --Dhartung | Talk 15:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
this rude boy is just tired to see oriented articles. why spending hours in wikipedia trying to tell the truth when few months later someone come and remove my edits with the cleaning as an excuse to censor my infos. for exemple i've lost a rare picture of the viet minh parade in hanoi in 1954 after dien bien phu, there were hundreds maybe thousands of soviet-built molotova trucks, while the communist propaganda (Roman Karmen was in) told the coolies used modified bicycles to bring the artillery pieces at DBP. it was a big lie, and i'm tired to see the propaganda is still used in wikipedia as the historical truth while it was lies. the picture i took was in an official vietnamese info site. the article and the pictures are now removed as dead links. i'm tired too to see the americans censoring my info about the us involvement in the french side. i gave my source links. everyone can check them and see i'm not a liar. now i don't have enough time i had before to edit articles. i only can give you infos, not spending hours editing that's for the drop. Shame On You 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Shame On You, every editing page on Wikipedia contains the warning, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Nobody has ownership of an article. As for the photograph, I can only assume it was deemed in violation of fair use guidelines, which are becoming more restrictive on Wikipedia due to the legal environment. I'm not sure how you can prove who was "censoring" your edits, much less derive a motivation for doing so. Ultimately, just keep in mind that what you think is important may not seem so to other editors. Is the how of the defeat, half a century later, more important than the defeat itself? In this case, it's pretty obvious that a massive manual labor effort was a critical part of the operation, so I'm not sure how devastating it is to point out that they also had a few trucks. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
a few trucks ? you're kidding me right? they used soviet-built trucks not bicycles! looking at it as a USSR/chinese-backed and US/loyal indochinese-backed conflict changes everything because it turns a colonial war into a goddamn cold war. i don't care if it was 50 years ago or a millenium, the thing is truth must be told. what do you think about these evidences 1, [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/801098/posts 2] & 3. and how do you call this er ? Shame On You 02:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
hohoho! what do we have here? looks like full regular army units fighting on the french side! comes from the official website about the DBP battle hosted by veterans.

adding them to the US airforce pilots, seems like it lacks several flags now! Shame On You 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung >> have a look at these bunch of trucks, finally i found the article back! :o) how many are there? consider this only the 308th Division!!!! il et you imagine how much trucks were used by all divisions at DBP. these goddamn viet minh used pretty heavy bicycles don't you think? full article from viet official source is here. Shame On You 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO ASSUME GOOD FAITH WITH SUCH EVIDENCES DENIED ?! i wil give it more credit than THIS... (used in the military museum of hanoi Shame On You 06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Weak state often ruled by China" comment

  • I am concerned of the bias of this statement. Before I make my arguments, I would like to state that I am Vietnamese and may have my own bias when it comes to how Vietnam is portrayed. I will try to be as impartial as possible.
  • Though Vietnam was colonized by France and was definitely not up to par with the Industrialized West during the mid-to-late 1800s, Vietnam was one the strongest non-Industrialized nations during this time period -- when I was in high school, my AP World History book said that along with China and Japan, on paper Vietnam was one of the top contenders to resist Western Imperialism. Because this was a few years ago, I do not have the bibliographical information to cite -- therefore, I will not put this information on the page. Of course, I will attempt to get said information to verify my claim.
  • Before France began its colonization of Vietnam, several historians (though I will admit that the majority of them are Vietnamese or Vietnamese-American) believe that Vietnam was on the path to being the dominant power in Southeast Asia. It was about a decade from conquering Cambodia and had effectively curbed Siamese/Thai expansion. Only until the intervention of French power, coupled with the civil war between the Nguyen and Trinh dynasties, did Vietnamese power begin to wane.
  • Though China did famously colonize Vietnam for 1,000 years, this ended in 939 C.E. Though Vietnam was threatened by other powers after 939, including China and Mongolia, it was able to effectively resist such invasions and generally maintain its independence.
  • Vietnam maintained its culture despite a 1,000 years of Chinese domination; however, admittedly it has been heavily influence by Chinese culture. It resisted the Mongol Empire three times -- see Vietnam history page and Battle of Bach Dang. Therefore, I do not understand how some would claim Vietnam as "weak". It may have been weak compared to the Industrialized West, but this could be said for every other country that had not yet industrialized.
  • I apologize for being preachy. It just saddens me when people try to marginalize the accomplishments that Vietnam has made. I know that Vietnam has never be seen as a great power. However, though many may argue with me, according to several historians (again, predominately Vietnamese but also some Western historians), Vietnam was one of the strongest regional powers prior to France's intervention.
  • To sum up (I apologize for being so long), I will remove and edit the "weak state often ruled by China" comment in favor of something more NPOV. I will NOT add any of the arguments that I have made because it is inappropriate for the page and I currently do not have the information to back up my claims (again, I will try to find them if somebody disagrees with me).

Bngo 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what our own History of Vietnam article says:
While for much of its history, Vietnam remained a tributary state to the much larger neighbor -- China, it repelled repeated attempts by China to make it once again part of the Middle Kingdom empire, including the three invasions by the Mongols during the Yuan Dynasty, when China was under Mongolian rule. But ruler at the time, Tran Nhan Tong (Trần Nhân Tông), would eventually diplomatically submit as a tributary of the Yuan to avoid further conflicts. The independent period temporarily ended in mid-19th century, when the country was colonized by France.
How would you summarize that differently? If it were such a strong power, why was it colonized by France? According to the understanding I have had, France bargained its way in, with the agreement of rulers like Tran, who thought an alliance with France would help defend them against China. It didn't work out that way, of course. Certainly it had as much potential as any Asian state to become a regional power, but history shows that it didn't. It wasn't industrialized, and it had difficulty exploiting its one major export of the day, coal.--Dhartung | Talk 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As I previously commented, Vietnam was NOT a strong power in relation to the Western Industrialized nations. However, of all the non-industrialized nations, several historians - both Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese - have noted that on the eve of the new Age of Imperialism, Vietnam was regionally strong. It of course wasn't the strongest non-industrialized nation - I was not arguing that.
I was attempting to improve on the NPOV of the article. I believe that the way the paragraph reads now is more impartial. It signifies that France colonized Vietnam without implying any bias.128.42.95.253 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not signed in when I commented.BNgo 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of BNgo's analyses on Vietnam having been a strong regional power prior to the arrival of the French who had superior weapons and meteriels. The underestimation of the military potentials and capabilities of the Vietnamese people has been the main cause for defeat by the invasion and occupation forces of the Chinese, Mongol, French and American empires. Until such a recognition is realized, major powers will continue to attempt fate and embark on military adventures in Vietnam. The Chinese had not learned the lesson when they invaded Vietnam in 1979 in an attempt "to teach the Vietnamese a lesson" and instead, re-learned a bitter lesson of their own.

A strong and independent Vietnam actually is to the interest of all concerned. No major power can have control there but none will have to suffer the experience of a difficult occupation and war and an eventual humiliating defeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom3605 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

incorrect flag

this is was not the State of Vietnam! state if vietnam started in 1949, the war started back in 1945 not in 1949. learn your history before editing with nonsense. Shame On You 21:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was created in 1949, so it fought five years in the war, having an army of 150,000 men when it ended. Carl Logan 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Vietnam War has the russian and chinese featured in the combatants list... LMAO :o) NOW i'm sorry but i'm forced to add them in this article too. it would be unfair right? what's right for the US defeat is right for the french. (see Civil Air Transport, Battle of Dien Bien Phu) Shame On You 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

US PublicDomain pictures available for wikicommons

  • #1: "A French Foreign Legionnaire goes to war along the dry rib of a rice paddy, during a recent sweep through communist-held areas in the Red River Delta, between Haiphong and Hanoi. Behind the Legionnaire is a U.S. gifted tank. Ca. 1954"
  • #2: "Vietnam refugees. USS Montague lowers a ladder over the side to French LSM to take refugees aboard. Haiphong, August 1954. PH1 H.S. Hemphill."
  • #3: "The French Foreign Legion is playing the major combat role in the war against the Vietminh. Here a red-suspect has been found hiding in the jungle and is now being questioned by the advance patrol, who caught him. Ca. 1954"
  • #4: "A wounded Vietminh prisoner is given first aid by Franco Vietnamese medicals after hot fire fight near Hung Yen, south of Hanoi. Ca. 1954"
  • #5: "Catholics escaping communist territory in the dead of night smile as they pull alongside French landing craft that will take them to freedom. Ca. 1954."

seems like POV has changed since this US militaryman wrote these comments back in 1954! Shame On You 03:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

domino theory

it speaks by itself! this doctrine was first used by eisenhower back in 1954 about the french vietnam war. it was cold war. Shame On You 07:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Colonial or Cold war matter

I found this -which reminds me Eden's strategy during the Suez crisis- on the European Navigator which is an official and independent organism based in Luxembourg. I suggest it should be pointed within the current article's U.S. involvement chapter. "France had thought it could retake Vietnam, where its troops had been fighting the Viet Minh (the Communist League for the Independence of Vietnam) since 1948, but its strategists were predicting a long war at high human cost. In order to justify this colonial war to world public opinion in general and to the American Government in particular, France therefore defined it more as a fight against Communism than as a colonial war. Thus, as from 1950, the United States declared themselves ready to give material aid to the French war effort by supplying arms." Cliché Online 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The word Viet Minh is an abbreviation of "Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh" which literally means "Alliance of/for Vietnam independence". There is no 'Communist' in it like in your 'Communist League for the Independence of Vietnam'. I am sick and tired of all the French who try to justify their evil war which has no purpose rather than exploiting people from weak country to their advantage.

BTW, by 'organism based in Luxembourg'.. are you making some kind of joke here or you really meant organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.58.85 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Sorry if you're sick of it, but "Alliance of/for Vietnam independence" was ruled by communist lads and had the idea to ensure Communism in Vietnam, no matter you like it or not. Can you understand this particular colonial war was just an event in the cold war. And your cliché about "all the French who try to justify their evil war", laughable. In fact, the majority of them were against this war they considered as colonial. 86.206.186.8 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My grandfather was in the Viet Minh. And no it wasn't ruled by Communists lads in the beginning, because my grandfather was no communist. It was a combination of different Nationalist groups, of which the ICP was one. Eventually most of the parties dropped out when they couldn't trust Ho Chi Minh and the ICP. My grandfather was going to be assassinated because of the ICP, he had to escape and change his name. You tell me, if Ho Chi Minh had nothing but "Nationalistic" hopes and views then why the hell did he go killing all his "enemies" who were fighting for the same cause - Nationalism?twinqletwinqle (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

At the end of the third paragraph, the French Wikipedia is cited. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is there a secondary cited at that article that can be substituted directly? I also think the "expand" template can come off. It's expanded pretty well. We need to source the expansions better now. It feels a little OR-ish. I'd like to format all of the existing citations, but this article seems pretty busy. I've been able to sneak a few edits in. - Crockspot 20:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've formatted, named, and combined all the multiply-cited sources. Will work on formatting the others later. - Crockspot 22:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course you are right about the source. This matter has been corrected. Cliché Online 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

recyclable infos

I think these infos are important, although they were not located in the right section.

  • President Chirac's speech of 2004.
  • Stones thrown at veterans coming back from the camps. <ref>[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2059h_bigeard-et-dien-bien-phu Bigeard & Dien Bien Phu, French news, public channel France 2, May 3rd 2004]</ref>

First Chirac waited 2004 to celebrate the war which tells things about what a taboo it was and how much the war was seen from a negative POV in metropolitan france. Second the veterans received with stick and stones should be rewritten and used in the antiwar section as a conclusion or something. Cliché Online 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just want to mention that I've given ref names to many of the multiply-cited sources, so to cite the above source you mention, just use the short tag <ref name="bigeardetdienbienphu"/>. - Crockspot 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

from the Viet Minh reeducation camps to the Arzew Psychological Warfare School

The "école de guerre psychologique d’Arzew" near Mostaganem, French Algeria was a psychological warfare academy ("une école de formation des cadres sur la guerre psychologique"). Most of the teachers were Indochina veterans who had experienced the Viet Minh reeducation camps from which 3/4 of the French Union POWs died or disappeared (especially the south vietnamese). These veterans experienced the political commissioners psychological work. A famous commissioner working for the Viet Minh and torturing the French was the French communist party militant fr:Georges Boudarel known for the Boudarel Affair. Paris By Night 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the French article (fr:CIPCG). Unfortunately I have no time to do the English version by myself. Paris By Night 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vietnamese refugees camps in france

This VOD documentary was broadcasted on the French public channel [6]. It is probably a good information source for the war crimes section stub. This matter is mostly overlooked. Cliché Online 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the war by year

obviously this dection is not neutral and pro-viet minh oriented. by reading all of these viet minh victories "wiping" the french it's hard to believe the war lasted 8 years with 1/3 ratio casualities for the french compared to the viet minh. it only focuses on the viet minh victories and the way bao dai is described is not really objective. this had to be neutralized and completed, there's not a single word about the job of the GCMA neither. Paris By Night 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


I all agree. The viet minh never wiped out the french expeditionnary forces(composed of 190,000 men and reinforced by local troops, how could it have been wiped out in DBP where they were only 14,000 french ?), neither the french did with the viet minh. The indochina war was a political war. Before even DBP, every body knew negociations were to be open, and this battle is only an attempt for the two sides to have the dominant position in the negociations. But french 14,000 men, despite their courages, were no match against a fierce army of 50,000 men armed and trained by the chinese. Even though, the french managed to resist fiercely, and the viet minh casualties in the battle were very high, much higher than teh french casualties. Clems78

totally overlooked/unknown

french SAS resistance operations against the japanese 1943-1945 and chinese campaign. >> have a look at this and LEARN! :) Paris By Night 08:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Indochina_War/Archive_1&oldid=464137965"