FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Vietnamese War: a Different Take

Fifty years ago the southern Vietnamese revolutionary forces together with regular army units of the northern Vietnamese military launched a military offensive against the forces of the southern Vietnamese and US militaries.  This offensive, known as the TET offensive because it took place during the TET holiday, involved hundreds of thousands of fighters on both sides and resulted in thousands of casualties.  Residents of the United States, many of whom had relatives in their nation’s military, watched as the US Embassy in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) came under attack.  Meanwhile, closer to the imaginary line on the 17th parallel that divided northern Vietnam from southern Vietnam, a battle raged in the town of Khe Sanh.  US and southern Vietnamese forces (ARVN) would finally declare victory, blow up their base and leave in early July of 1968.

The intention of the anti-imperialist forces in this offensive was to spark a popular uprising amongst the civilian population of southern Vietnam.  Communist political cadre had been educating and organizing among the Vietnamese south of the seventeenth parallel since well before the independence forces defeated the French colonial military at Dien Bien Phu.  Although there was no popular uprising in 1968, the effect of the revolutionary forces offensive in the United States was one that ultimately turned the population against the war.  In other words, it was the beginning of the end to the popular belief among Americans that a US/ARVN military victory was possible.  Indeed, within three months, President Lyndon Johnson had declared he would not run for re-election and instituted a halt to the bombing by US warplanes.  Unfortunately, US involvement would continue at a murderous pace for five more years.  After the departure of most US forces by 1973, US aid to its client regime in Saigon continued until that regime’s surrender in May 1975.

The paragraphs above summarize a common understanding of the US war against the Vietnamese. This understanding tends to diminish the primary actors in the war: the Vietnamese people.  This in turn, has rendered the history of the war incomplete. Although various individuals who fought against the US military and its Vietnamese accomplices have written personal histories—General Giap probably foremost among them—to my knowledge here has been no history written in English that attempts objectivity and a Vietnamese perspective.  In addition, there has been no such history written where the author had access to previously classified archives of the Hanoi government.  The 2017 publication of Hanoi’s War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam should change this.

Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, the author of this new work, is a professor of history.  She was born in Vietnam in 1974.  Her parents left the country in 1975.  Her interest seems to be inspired both by her personal history and the desire to present the Vietnamese “war for peace” in terms that re-defines the role of the Vietnamese; transforming them into a people intent on determining their own fate, not merely as a people fighting an aggressor whose presence in the country is perceived by so many as a foreign policy “mistake.”  Like any history, this one is not complete. It is however a detailed look at the complexities in the Vietnamese revolutionary effort and its utilization of military, public relations and diplomacy in the long struggle to achieve its goal of independence.

Crucial to Nguyen’s telling is what might be considered a sort of revisionism.  This is most obvious in her conclusion that it was two men whose roles were the most important in the Vietnamese war
against Washington and Saigon.  Despite what could be considered the common understanding, the reader discovers their names were not Giap or Ho Chi Minh, but Le Duan and Le Duc Tho.  For those who remember (and those who have studied this period of history) the name Le Duc Tho is probably familiar.  After all, he was awarded (along with Henry Kissinger) the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in the Paris negotiations for peace in Vietnam.  He also refused the prize because the war continued, in large part because the US refused to uphold parts of the agreement.  Le Duan, however, is less known to the western reader.  He was born in southern Vietnam and rose to the top of the Vietnamese Communist Party, becoming General Secretary in 1960.

According to author Nguyen, it was Le Duan and Le Duc Tho who insisted that the primary goal of the party and the Vietnamese after the Geneva Accords of 1954 should be the liberation of the South.  This conflicted with those who considered the primary objective should be the industrialization of the northern part of the country while waging a protracted guerrilla war in the south.  It was this debate that underlined many of the twists and turns in the Vietnamese conduct of the war, especially before the US began its escalation in 1965. After that turn of events, Nguyen argues that the debates became less about industrialization in the north and more about various military strategies.

This is not an overtly anti-imperialist history.  Nor is it the opposite of one.  It is a comprehensive look at the methods used by the Hanoi government to keep forging ahead in its goal of reunifying Vietnam.  In relating her history, the author provides a detailed look at how Hanoi used its military, its diplomatic corps and international public opinion to win the Vietnamese struggle for independence.  Although she occasionally diminishes certain aspects of the bloodthirsty and genocidal campaign Washington carried on against Vietnam and the rest of Indochina, her focus on the Hanoi government and individuals within it give the reader a much needed perspective that puts the Vietnamese role front and center.  It is a text that avoids the US hubris common in most English language histories of the war.  There is a familiar truism that history is written by the victors.  This has not been the case in most English language histories of what Nguyen calls the Vietnamese war for peace.  Hanoi’s War could well be the first.

More articles by:

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem.  He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
February 18, 2020
John Pilger
Julian Assange Must be Freed, Not Betrayed
Peter Harrison
Religion is a Repeating Chapter in the History of Politics
Norman Solomon
The Escalating Class War Against Bernie Sanders
Conn Hallinan
Irish Elections and Unification
Dean Baker
We Shouldn’t Have to Beg Mark Zuckerberg to Respect Democracy
Sam Pizzigati
A Silicon Valley Life Lesson: Money That ‘Clumps’ Crushes
Arshad Khan
Minority Abuse: A Slice of Life in Modi’s India
Walden Bello
China’s Economy: Powerful But Vulernable
Nicolas J S Davies
Afghan Troops say Taliban are Brothers and War is “Not Really Our Fight.”
Nyla Ali Khan
The BJP is Not India, and Every Indian is Not a Modi-Devotee
Binoy Kampmark
Buying Elections: The Bloomberg Meme Campaign
Jonah Raskin
Here’s Hoping
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Herakles in the Age of Climate Chaos
Bob Topper
The Conscience of a Conservative
John W. Whitehead
We’re All in This Together
Gala Pin
Bodies in Freedom: a Barcelona Story
Laura Flanders
Democracy, Dictatorship and Bloomberg
James Chandler
Among Cruel Children
February 17, 2020
Sheldon Richman
Anti-BDS Laws Violate Our Freedom
John Horning
NEPA is Our National Defense System

Evelyn Leopold
How the UN’s Middle East Peace Plan Was Trounced by Its Own Members
Stephen Cooper
“Just Mercy” and Justice Don’t Exist in Alabama
Patrick Cockburn
Sinn Fein’s Victory is Ireland’s ‘Brexit Moment’ When Left-Out Voters Turn on the Elite
Ralph Nader
“Democratic Socialism” – Bring it on Corporate Socialists!
Phillip Doe
Every Day’s a Holiday for the Oil Business in Colorado
Binoy Kampmark
Fashion Fetishism, Surgical Masks and Coronavirus
Cesar Chelala
The Democrats’ New Chapter
Robert Koehler
The Wall: Separating Democracy From Voters
Peter Cohen
Time to Retire the “He Can’t Beat Trump” Trope
Sr. Kathleen Erickson
Lessons From Ministering on the Border
Alvaro Huerta
Another Five Lessons for Democrats to Defeat Trump in 2020
Wim Laven
Donald Trump’s Plan for America: Make it Ignorant
Christopher Brauchli
You Tube’s Trump Predicament
Steve Klinger
Trump Shoots Romney at Prayer Breakfast; GOP Shrugs
Elliot Sperber
Ode to the City Bus 
James Haught
Megachurch Mess
Weekend Edition
February 14, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
Mayor Mike, Worse Than Mayor Pete
Bruce E. Levine
“Sublime Madness”: Anarchists, Psychiatric Survivors, Emma Goldman & Harriet Tubman
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Leader of the Pack
Jennifer Matsui
The Doomsday Cuckoo Clock
Paul Street
Things Said in Confidence to 4000 Close Friends This Week
Jonathan Cook
Even With Corbyn Gone, Antisemitism Threats Will Keep Destroying the UK Labour Party
Thomas Klikauer
Cambridge Analytica: a Salesgirl’s Report
Joseph Natoli
Vichy Democrats vs. the Master Voice
David Rosen
Sanders vs. the Establishment Democrats: McGovern All Over Again?
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail