Sign In
Create Account
(4.57 - 14votes)
Dien Bien Phu
| Alt Names: |  Điện Biên Phủ |
| Author: | Nishijima Daisuke |
| Artist: | Nishijima Daisuke |
| Genres: |  Action Fantasy Historical Seinen Supernatural |
| Type: | Manga (Japanese) |
| Status: | Ongoing |
| Description: | The tale begins on January 1965, Vietnam. Hikaru Minami, a newbie reporter, lands in Saigon to begin photographing the war. Thus does his story of war, growth, life, and a tragic love begin. Drawn in a simple and light style that belies its subject matter, complementing the writing very well. |
| Go to Dien Bien Phu Forums! | Scroll Down to Comments | |
The following content is intended for mature audiences and may contain sexual themes, gore, violence and/or strong language. Discretion is advised.
Latest Forum Posts
| Topic | Started By | Stats | Last Post Info | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Vietnam / Dien Bien Phu Discussion  |
theroadstopshere |
|
|
Start New Topic
Highest Rated Series
52 Comments
No, I know. But he didn't know that before he asked, and he didn't know that before he opened the camera up.
Opening a film-loaded camera up outside of a darkroom destroys the film, so his question and his opening it to check don't make any sense. Nobody would actually do that unless they were deliberately trying to destroy the film, and regardless of the circumstances the other journalist would have objected the moment he started trying to open it.
Oh huh. Someone picked Dien Bien Phu back up. Good luck on catching up
You missed the point. There was no film in the camera.
"Let me see this picture you took there. May I see your camera?"
It took me a moment to realize that this was an anachronism for him to ask that -- it made no sense. You couldn't do that with the cameras they had in 1965, so he would have had to at least remove the film in a darkroom just to safely look at the negative.
oddly I feel chills when reading the killings in this manga
That name is internationally recognised as such on official maps issued in English-speaking countries. From a mapmaker's standpoint, South China Sea is a better name because people know where China is, while if you bring up "East Vietnamese Sea", they would have to ask "Where is Vietnam?". If you want to make a map that's convenient for tourists from over 200 different nations, you have to go with a name that everyone knows.
http://vatoto.com/read/_/169182/dien-bien-phu_v1_ch1_by_dien-bien-phu-translation-project/7
I hate to say this but I just can't believe it. It's not South China Sea. It's Vietnam's east sea.
Maybe from the geography's aspect, it's the same. But from a nation's territory aspect, it causes huge uncomfortable misunderstanding.
Well even if that's the map from old time, I do think it should be named as "East Vietnamese Sea".
Sorry for my bad mistakes in grammar or words.
The raping, laying traps all over the forests, bombing and decapitating are all real.
A flying ninja sure hell isn't.
Sorry everyone, I just made my account to comment this manga, and I got into an interesting argument. And I kind of started this too. So please delete my involved comments if they disturb others.
Thank you, theroadstopshere, for reminding me; zavie and wanderingsoul for responding my disturbing comment ^^.
P/S: Hope you guys see this before it get deleted too.
Nope, lengthy comments on the other hand might still be removed, so all of you should start using the forum.
Guys, your discussion may provoke come political matters, and that may lead to the removal of this manga from batoto. Therefore, I advise you do your historical exchange somewhere else.
Guys. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there's such thing as a discussion forum. You can post in it, get notifications when someone replies, and you get a lot more space for writing multi-paragraph essays for your arguments.
So basically, please take your arguments there, for everyone's sake. It's an interesting discussion, yes, and as a member of the U.S. military, who just finished a multi-week analysis of Vietnam, and has close Vietnamese friends, it has a lot that is worth arguing about. The whole situation was fucked up. It was a messy, disturbing, and ugly war from every perspective, and every single group involved holds part of the blame.
But please put the discussion where the discussion belongs, in a forum topic.
On behalf of other present and future readers, thanks for being considerate of us.
Yeah, I agree with you, how we perceive something is really important. Look like this topic started to reach the point where I can't confidently argue with you (you can tell by the way I response lol) 'cause I don't have evidences, however, I can't completely agree with those, either.
The usage of financial aid and the purpose of Operation Linebacker II are just my opinions, so if you have any articles or books (from trustworthy and objective writers if possible) regarding to these, please tell me.
Sorry if I bother you, I'm the kind of person who doesn't completely accept a fact without clear evidences (bad me ^^)
I got information from several source including some documentary films and books. Generally, google is your friend.
As for the Treaty, when Thieu first criticized and demanded changes, the North just saw it as a ploy made by both Americans and South goverment. Probably, they thought that the Treaty was going to change and was not very please about it. So they broadcasted the whole Treaty to public and said if the Treaty changed, they would abandon the meeting. Basically, Thieu being a drama queen caused all that trouble. As for Linebacker II, the diplomatic pressure as the time was so great in US that they just wanted to get over the Vietnam issues. Not the smartest thing to do I know, but they had to do it And while they were making both sides signed the contract, US also had some secret operation carried out to ensure its future in SEA (see Cambodia and F11 scandals). They got exposed later though.
About the financial aids and US troops withdrawal, as I said, it was just a matter of opinion. I personally don't see it as a breach of the Treaty, Aids are aids, money does not equal to millitary. Whatever Thieu wanted to do with it did not concern the US (even though they had hidden agenda, it couldn;t be proven at the time). They only wanted to pull all of their troops back and didn't operate in VN after the Treaty, so there were no direct millitary involvements on US part.
So yeah, it only depends on how you perceive it really. Tons of countries are still receiving monetary aids from others. Those countries don't necessary have to spend them on war and such. Just because some countries do doesn't make your assumption legit.
1 more question, if the treaty had already been discussed in secret, where can I get information regarding that secret's part?
I can't understand why the North was angry and "intended to pull back from the table". The treaty was favorable to them, and America was not at the Thieu's side anymore (with the treaty). If the American didn't stop the North from "pulling out from the table", wouldn't the North have disadvantages? According to your statement, the North should have pressured Nison to make Thieu sigh the treaty, instead of taking the risk when trying to "pulling out from the table". And if I do not misunderstand your idea, the Linebacker II bombarding, killed 2000 Northern and damaging the North facilities severely was to "force" the North to sign a treaty that WAS ALREADY FAVORABLE to them? I can't see using tons of bombs, lots of B-52 and the lives of people from both sides was a good idea to do so.
And the treaty again, America and the North couldn't pump anymore troops and aid to both sides in the South. "Financial aid" was just a term, how Thieu used it is a different matter. And wars are not only battles and frontlines, politics, economy and other factors are parts of war too (for example, recently, Syria has 2 sides fighting each other, outsiders do not send armies to fight, but pumping weapons and money for 1 of the 2 sides; does it count as not involve in Syria's warfare?)
And yes, to the America, Vietnam war ended in 1973, that could be what the American government wants its people to think that America did not take part in Vietnam war anymore, just like how the Vietnamese government wants its people to think that their government is absolutely right. People's opinions can be effected and the truth can be covered. I can't say that what I'm going to state is true, but it can be a possibility: the American citizens do not know the whole truth and America still involved in Vietnam warfare after 1973, and the 1973-American-official-pulling-back was just a fake-becoming-true, due to the fall of Nison.
P/S: I'm not really good at English, so maybe I can't express my ideas well. So ask me if some of my points are not clear.
As I said, the final draft of the Treaty had already been discussed in secret in October 1972 between Le Duc Tho and Kissinger (before Linebacker II), so the term was already favourable to the North then. However, Thieu didn't want to sign it and demanded changes in the Treaty. His action made the North angry and they intended to pull back from the table. The Linebacker II then would come to play. The operation ensured Le Duc Tho that he had to stay at the table (or they would deploy even more units to bomb the North). Moreover, it was also a way of saying to Thieu that US had got his back, Thieu had to sign to Treaty or US would leave VN and stop the aids (US basically threatened Thieu there). So your statement of saying Linebacker II was a miscalculation for a more US-favourable Treaty is completely untrue. There were no major changes in the Treaty at all after Oct 1972, Thieu demanded changes but was ignored.
As for the breaching issue, I personally don't think financial aids, in any way, represented millitary intervention. As for US soldier, I already illustrated my point that they had already been pulling back in significant amounts even before the Treaty was initiated. Although, yes, there were still soldiers in South Vietnam 60 days after the Treaty. However, they didn't participate at all in the later conflicts with the North Army at all, their only intention at that stage was to be called back to their home country. The Republic Army was the force that did the fighting in 1974. Therefore, I don't think it is fair to say US breached the contract just because there were still some of their army left in South Vietnam.
If you ask the majority of Americans, I believe that for them, the Vietnam offcially ended in 1973. Unlinke how we learned in school that it ended in April 1975.
wanderingsoul, thank you for your replies. I am not one of the people who "say the North forces totally destroyed the US forces".
It seems we misunderstand each other's statements, and get lost in the process.
I just don't agree with some of your words, not your whole opinions.
Sorry if I offended you during our debate, and thank you for replying to me every time.
Thanks, you finally use the phrase "the US had to sign the treaty".
Right from the start, BOTH sides never intended to follow the treaty. The 60-day pulling-back (until the end of March) was never done by both sides ( the North communists were still in the South, the same for America, they never pulled ALL their troops or stopped the supplies for the South government). Financial aid you mentioned by the American was also breaching the treaty (we never know the South used that financial aids for their military or citizens), and that "financial aid" was not stopped after the treaty (the same for the North, again). "Official force" is really true, however, as the treaty said, no outsider's interference was allowed after 1973.
China did have marks of betraying Soviet before the Vietnam war ended, but I'm not taking any further.
Operation Linebacker II was originally to keep the North at the table, you are right, and it was to force the North to sign a treaty that was more favorable to the U.S. However, Nison miscalculated, the informed American citizens did not believe that the U.S "forced" the North to sign that treaty (i did research this), which partly pulled Nison down. The original purpose and the result was not totally marched.
In conclusion, I see the treaty was invalid right from the beginning, not followed by both sides; and Operation Linebacker II did not end as Nison wanted.
P/S: Operation Linebacker II was denounced by Soviet and China, criticized by many western and American. Disagreement existed within the people who used to support the Operation Linebacker I and Nison was called the "madman".
The U.S claimed that they forced the North to return to negotiating, however, the treaty clearly benefited the North.
The North was severely damaged, but "it did not break the stalemate in the South, nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Hồ Chí Minh trail".
As I mentioned before, I judge after looking at the process and result, and Operation Linebacker II failed its mission in my opinion. (except your statement "US insurance for Thieu to force him to agree to the Treaty", please be more clearly about this, my curiousity itches again lol)
My point was not that the US won (they didn't), but that the US fought hard and won the battles only to lose the war (due to not achieving any of the set goals such as getting the South to maintain a army that could defend itself, losing massive support at home (though not to the point of a civil war), etc.).
I find it odd when so many people say the North forces totally destroyed the US forces (in battle) then compare that with the statistical data (my sports team analogy shows the flaw in such logic).
And yes, that sports team analogy was a little harsh, so I should change it to the best high school team in the country (US) versus a small high school city team (North).
The US did take a beating but not nearly as much as the North.
US had to sign the Treaty because of diplomatic pressures. In fact, one of the reasons why Nixon won his 2nd residency in 1972 was due to his promise to pull back America from Vietnam. As I mentioned, even the US agreed to pull back, Nixon still hoped to pump financial aids to the South for it to set up its own army, strong enough to withstand to North by itself. This plan fell horibly wrong with the fall of Nixon in 1974 though.
After some more readings, let me correct some of my remarks earlier. The PRG of NFL did start out as an independent political representation of the South, which included a lot of nationalists, socialists and communists. However, as the war went on, the party also changed its own direction. I wouldn't call them conflicts, but their was a lot of internal disagreements between communist and non-communist members (Truong Nhu Tang or Ba Cap for example). The non-communist members were likely oppressed or just simply left. And PRG became a psuedo-North Vietnam government overtime, with its core memeber were all communist. That why the party was dissolved and merged to the North so quickly in 1976.
As for the 1979 war with China, from what I understand, it wasn't because they betray Russia or Vietnam. As they were still the biggest supplier of Vietnam until the American war finished. However, the Chineses was backing the Cambodian Pol Pot who attacked Vietnamese soldier based on Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. Then Vietnam sent their troops to Cambodia to oppress the Pol Pot, declaring war to the Chineses in the process. But let's not go there, as it is a entirely different thing.
After the Treaty, the America did in fact pulled back troops, in fact, they had already been doing so after 1969. In that respect, 200,000 troops from North Vietnam attacking the South in 1974 was totally a breach of the Treaty. There were no offcial American force that fight the NLF or North Vietnam Army after the Treaty. The republic Army had to hold back the attack alone from 1974 onward. South Vietnam turned to America for help (again), but their plegdes were dismissed by the US Senate with the fall of Nixon. US also cut their finacial aids from 34 billions dollars to 1 billion that year, mainly to evacuate any remain American and political refugees. Thieu loathed blamed the US for this. In brief, North Vietnam breached the Treaty but the US couldn't give a toss about it anymore.
And nope, if you google Operation Linebacker II, you will see that its original design is to keep the NFL and North Vietnam at the table. The final draft of the Treaty had already been finalized between Le Duc Tho and Kissinger in early 1972. Thieu didn't know and refuse to accept that draft, but the US forced him to do so, promised to aid his government for Army training later. In a way, the Linebacker II was acting as US insurrance for Thieu to force him to agree to the Treaty as well.
It seems we still have some disagreement regarding the "The North had to g back to the meeting table". These are some conditions in the 1973 treaty (I'm not sure I remember it right, point out if something is wrong)
- America and other countries respect the independence, sovereignty and sth-I-can't-remember of VIetnam recognized by the 1954 treaty (between the North and France at that time, it means the South government was not included)
- The cease-fire started from 27/1/1973. The South would have 2 government, and no outsiders could not aid the south with troops, weapons and others war materials. For exception, the support would be 1:1 (if means if 1 side (in the South) received a tank, the same for the other). All other countries had to send ALL their troops back home in 60 days. (the 1:1 exchange was favorable to the Norh, 'cause their support to the NLF couldn't be measured while the American's could be; and both America and the North didn't complete their comdition of sending all troops back)
- The prisoners would be returned unconditionally in 60 days. (This is what Nison hoped for to keep his seat)
- The unite of Vietnam would be done in fairly and peacefully (Thiệu never allowed that to happen, he still hoped that America would be back, and he even increased his political power with the American support; yes, if the North went back, it would be 2 vs 1 again)
- To make sure that the treaty was kept, an organization was founded. (however, this condition was not cared by BOTH sides)
- Laos and Cambodia remained neutral and not allow any sides to have other nations' military bases in their lands (This condition could not be done 'cause the 2 countries were still in war and their government didn't have enough power the keep the condition; this is favorable to the North, I would say)
In conclusion, the contditions in the 1973 treaty seemed to be more favorable to the North, with the ones that had less favor to the North could not be watched. (I can't understand why the upper-hand America had to sign a treaty that gave them less favor)
I still don't agree with your statement that NLF and the North were different. As far as I know, some of the core members in the NLF were from the North, and they recruited soldiers while teaching them the same command structure to the Northern.
Nison did go to Soviet and China to stop the support to the North, that is 1 of the reasons China betrayed Soviet and the North with the war in 1979 ( I can say that America didn't abandon its dream to interfere in Vietnam warfare again). Soviet didn't stop supporting the North though.
Even if the North kept their conditions, the American were still in the South before or at the same time as the North breached the treaty, so you can't say that only the North breached the treaty (as your statement seems to lead that way)
The Arieal Dien Bien Phu was the last official try of America to pull out a more favorable treaty to them (it failed miserably though, and if that battle continued, Nison would pulled himself down faster)
i can understand the reason why SOME people in the NLF were afraid of the North though, and I will do some research for more information with this.
So, I mostly agree with your points, just some disagreement in word using. Thank you for a helpful debate. Hope to know more information about the Vietnamese war from you ^^.
I'm glad that you are interested in my blabbering
. I do read your arguement very carefully. As for why I said "they had to go back to the meeting table", please let me ellaborate my further understanding regarding the NLF (Vietcong), DR Vietnam (North VN), USA and Republic Vietnam (South VN) through the Paris Peace Treaty in 1973.
The talk for peace in Vietnam as a whole had been going ever since 1969. In the early stage, North Vietnam and the Provisionary Revolutionary Government (Chính phủ cách mạng lâm thời) from the NLF (I would like to stress those are two seperate parties working on a common goal) demanded Nguyen Van Thieu, president of the Republic Vietnam, to step down unconditionally as a breach of 1954 Geneva Peace Treaty. They also demanded America to stop bombing the North territories (from DMZ upward, since 1964) all at once . What happened was Americans also demanded North Vietnam to decrease any further involvement in South Vietnam and Thieu refused to sign the Treaty, as they also didn't recognize the NLF as a legitimate political party, hence creating the early deadlock until 1972.
North Vienam wanted to use the US election in 1972 as a political and diplomatic pressure on Nixon to withdrawn American Army back. At the time, Nixon had to face with critism from the public and lots of oppositions inside their own government. So in term of non-violent warfare, North Vietnam was really clever and had the upper hand. As the war was dragging, the problem America had to face in its own country would also increase.
Yet, you have to remember the biggest allies of North Vietnam at the time were China and Russia. Uncle Ho himself had to travel to those countries several time asking for helps with supplies and technologies. Their supports were the main factor that helped the North Vietnam to prolong the fight (google and you will have an idea how much support they poured in North Vietnam at the time). However, in 1972, president Nixon won his election again and started to visit China and Russia, in the hope to deepen the relations between gobal superpowers at the time. This striked a great fear into the North Vietnam and the NLF, as China began to turn neutral to the conflict. North Vietnam had to send Le Duc Tho back to the meeting table for a compromised draft by Henry Kissinger from the US.
The compromises were made that the North will regcognize the South Government and America will stop any further involvement in Vietnam, including boming and further Peace talk could pregress then. Le Duc Tho and Kissinger agreed the Treaty without Thieu's acknowledgement. This made Thieu extremely furious as North Vietnam Army still had the right to stay in South Vietnam. Thieu broadcasted against both US and Hanoi, stating the Treaty was horrible and demanding changes. North Viet saw these changes as a ploy made by Kissinger and broadcasted the entire Treaty to the public, putting even more pressure to US. Through oppositions, Nixon managed to plegde for further financial aids to be poured in South Vietnam. He even order the Operation Linebacker II (as Vietnameses prefer it as Ariel Dien Bien Phu) in December 1972 to assure Thieu and keep the North at the talking table. Nixon planned to disengagement US in Vietnam, but keep aiding the South Government (he would send intelligences to train the South Army until they would be able to fight on their own, a bit like Korea)
After the Treaty was officially signed in January 1973, Nixon began to pull back but promised involvement to thieu if North Vietnam were to breach the Treaty. Like it or not, North Vietnam breached the Treaty (just North Vietnam, not the NLF though) by beginning the Ho Chi Minh Campaign. Thieu begged US for help, but by that time, Nixon was dismissed of his precidency because of Watergate. Then you know the rest. The American plan to increase its anti-communism power at SEA failed miserably.
As for why NLF and its government was afraid of the North, please remember not all of NLF members were communist, the PRG also included socialist and nationalist who had very different politics. They mainly worked because they wanted to reunify the country and fight Diem's pro-America regime. After the conflitc, a lot of member from the NLF were afraid that they would be excluded from the having any political power from the North Communist Party. That did happen, as the PRG dissolved right after 1975, however, not all of them are excluded, some of the nationalist did convert remain in the paliarment afterward.
My knowledge is not perfect, so if there are any mistakes, I am willing to listen
zavie, I'm happy that you know a lot about VIetnamese History (more than me, I could say ^^)
"Vietcong" was a term used by the South as an insult, like many indecent (I don't know how to say it right) words now on the Internet. Accepting a word with an original purpose like that is not favorable to a newly united country.
There was no "the Southern people" originally by your meanings. There were still communists and their helpers in the South, and the "Tố Cộng" operation (with Law 10/59) was for eliminating those people. In another word, I always see the North and the South people as one, due to the fact that a government created by breaking the 1954 treaty was not justified. So the NLF in my opinion was an army founded to take down an uninvited outsider, not a legal host.
I am not that interested in Communism, however, I know for what the American were in Vietnam at that time, and I do not care about who's justice or what kinds of propaganda both sides used. What I care for is the war itself and I judge after looking through the process and result; and I did reseach information about the war in many books written by Vietnamese and American and others as well (you knew how funny it is when different writers write about the same topic with contrary directions)
North Vietnam had more legit reason for action, you said. I agree, and that is all I need to judge. Just like an equation, I do something wrong at the 1st step and I cannot have good marks, even if I have a right result.
However, I do not agree with your 5th paragraph. You should look at the conditions in the 1972 treaty and how America reacted when the North attacked the South in 1974-75. (please look at the end of my comments if you are interested). So I can't agree with your statement "North Vietnam had to come to the meeting table in Paris".
I support my point that the South government was unjustified and Vietnam have had only 1 government since 1945 (so America wanted to remove a legal army of a legal government away from its legal land). I don't see the NLF as different force to the North, due to the fact that many NLF soldiers was attached to the North, some NLF core members were "Northern", and they followed the same command structure set up in 1958.
I don't know if the NLF members being afraid of the North or not. And I don't understand why the NLF, as an organization or an army, was afraid of the North (the NLF wasn't a government to begin with). If you know the reason, please tell me (i'm really curious).
Anyway, thank you for answering my full-of-words comment with yours, zavie. Your knowledge about Vietnamese surprised me, didn't know there are people interested in this topic.
Vietcong is a derogatory term that was used by Diem and Americans back in the Vietnam War. Yes, I know it was shortened from the "Việt Cộng Sản" but then even General Giap tried to avoid that term when interviewed by French media. Why? Because Vietcong wasn't entirely made of communists, there were nationalists and socialists as well. Vietcong's official name was National Liberation Front (NLF, Mặt trận Giải phóng miền Nam). The Front was formed mostly by farmers and political parties (not necessary communist) in the South that were opressed by Diem's regime. As I mentioned, Diem's government dissed the national election in 1955 according to the Geneva Treaty with the Us's backing. Later, when South Vietnam hosted its own election, Diem also used underhand tactics to eliminate any opposite factions, naming them communism. And that was when the fire started to spark.
Basically, US only helped the South government to fight against the NLF (Vietcong), they couldn't attack the North AT ALL until late 1960s with the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident as an excuse (yes, American, president Johnson plotted the whole thing). The US had to attack the North because the North kept helping NLF with supply and US couldn't damage the NLF HQ much (being a guerilla force after all). Diem and Americans were fighting their own Southern people, not the North (the propaganda at the time was all Vietnam belonged to its own people though, so I can understand why you thought like that)
It is the truth, whether you like it or not... I studied history in both Vietnamese and English, so I know what i'm talking about. Documentaries from each side tend to be very bias and full of propagandas, but I know how to cross-referencing them. As for why Americans was bother to protect South Vietnam, they wanted to make an anti-communism stronghold in South East Asia against China (as China is directly above Vietnam). If you take a look at the map at that time, communism was speading downward from China to North Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia and other country in SEA. South Vietnam was there to hold it off.
As for millitarity power, yes, Diem's government had no army before late 1950s (the force was mainly French then). Then Diem had to ask America for millitary back up and traning the Republic Army. But resistance forces in the South also faced the same problems, and they asked for supports from the North. North Vietnam and America both helped their own sides from the beginning, I don't see any problem there. In this case, both America and North Vietnam are intervetionists, although North Vietnam had more legit reason for action though.
And for 1972 Paris Treaty, what you learned in books at school in Vietnam has lots of bollocks, you know. Although America did suffer a great loss when bombing the North, did you know how much damage North Vietnam had to take to call that a victory? It was after 12 days that North Vietnam had to come to the meeting table in Paris for a compromise, they agreed to stop helping the NLF, but America also had to withdrawn all their troops from South Vietnam. The US promised Thieu (SVN president at the time) that they would help him if North Vietnam intervented again. When Ho Chi Minh Campaign started by the North Vietnam, Thieu begged US for help in 1974. But the Watergate incident in US and several conspiracies from Nixon involving Vietnam and Cambodia made him resigned his presidency. Hence, South Government had no help and was defeated by both NLF and North Vietnam. I don't see this as a "wait for US to leave and strike", but rather a victory on politic and diplomatic warfare for North Vietnam. They knew their strength and used it well to gain international attention, then striked at the right time when US's political power and diplomatic front were at their lowest.
Again, my point is NLF (Vietcong) is different from the North Vietnam Government at the time. Although you can argue that they were all Vietnamese that against the division of the country, I see nothing wrong with that. But you also had to understand that it was just the NLF that the US wanted to removed from South Vietnam territories (basically they wanted another North/South Korea in SEA). The US had no intention to attack or advance North (not before Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 anyway).
If you google around the web, you can also see lots of evidences that says the NLF members were also afraid that the North will take over the whole country when Diem and Thieu's government dissolved. Well, lots of NLF's members ended up as high ranking officers in North Vietnam Paliarment later anyway (there were also lots of opression after 1975 as well).
It is not like I don't understand your point, however, "waiting for the US to leave" gives an impression that the North didn't do anything but sitting at their base until the US went home after a vacation.
Your example also makes it look like the US totally dominated the North without losing anything. The US lost men (not as many as the North, I agree) without achieving anything for 20 years, and they had to leave because their citizens wanted so. "Nothing to be gained from playing that game" is not correct; it is "Nothing could be gained from that game".
As I said, winning doesn't mean you lose more or less men, it is the result that counts. The American took part in Vietnam wars, losing soldiers and lots of money, couldn't achieve what they fought for, and left Vietnam with empty hands.
I understand your points, and I appreciate your opinions; but I can't agree with them:
- The Allies won most of the battles, then why didn't they eliminate the North?
- They left Vietnam because nothing was gained, then what was their reason to fight in Vietnam? (to burn their soldiers and money in war?)
- A win is a win no matter how it is done, being disqualified is a lose, and if it is against a complete weaker enemy, it is just more miserable. Can you say, after a competition, that you could have won but you let your opponent win because you forfeited? Not fighting until the end is the reason why there are so many failures in this world. (And you can't say that "I could have won if I continued until the end"; the future is the future. Who can say that something will definitely happen? What if the professional team all have a stomachache or stroke by lightning and the highschool team still wins? What if the disagreement in America lead the war to the same end? No, no one can prove that it couldn't happen)
In conclusion, the result is right before our eyes, I never said that the North would win ultimately, I just said that they won, that is all.
P/S: sorry if I make you think that I didn't address your point. We debate because of different opinions in:
-The North INVADED or RECLAIMED the south. (I choose "reclaim")
-The war was a draw or a lose to America and the South. (I choose "lose")
-The North broke the treaty or not (I choose "not" for the 1954 one, and the 1973 one was not valid because the South refused to allow their people to vote)
-The North used their men as "cannon fodder" or not (I don't deny, but I don't agree with that word; men are resources in wars, and the North "used" them "effectively" to achieve their final mission, which the US couldn't. I can even say that 1 mil men lost for the victory has more worth than 60k lost for nothing)
-The North "waited" for the US to leave or not (I, again, don't agree with that word; the North fought "until the US had to leave")
> Are they all your points, wanderingsoul? If not, please remind me.