Vietnam war and assassination of leaders

I heard an interesting discussion on the radio about the Vietnam war. The war started much earlier than we normally think and this as a war to free Vietnam from the French colonizer in the 1950s. Because the French had big losses, they asked the Americans for help. They helped financially and by giving weaponry and advise. But, after wrong advise, the French suffered a major defeat and negotiations started between France and Vietnam.


The result was that the country was split into a northern part under brutal communist rule and a southern part where the Americans supported a crazy local ruler. The result was that in both parts, people suffered very much because:
  • the north wanted to install a regime based on Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union and who is known for his aversion for human rights;
  • the south was ruled by a person who enriched himself at the expense of his own people, was Roman Catholic in a mainly Buddhist country but was also notoriously anti-communists so he enjoyed the support of the Americans against the communist North.

The regime of the north noticed that people in the south suffered and, although they maltreated the Vietnamese in their own part, it decided to help Southerners to survive in return for resistance against the southern regime that increased the persecution of people they thought to have communist sympathies. The result was more Vietnamese became (hidden) communists and anti-American. Thus, anger against the Americans continued to grow. In the end, the South-Vietnamese leader was assassinated on 02/11/1963 (with American agreement) but this was too late. It may have been so different if the Americans had protected the people against their own leaders and if they had brought prosperity instead of supporting a dictator with the wrong religion, often an important detail.

Interesting, only 20 days after the South-Vietnamese leader was killed, President Kennedy was assassinated. Many people still believe his assassination could not have been done by one person but needed the support of the CIA and/or FBI and/or the military, a number of different conspiracy theories exist. Still, it seems that President Kennedy was against a larger involvement of the U.S. army in Vietnam. Maybe that is why he too had to go as hawks in the army opposed more "winning over the hearts and minds" of the population. Kennedy's successor Lyndon B. Johnson seemed more in favour of a war in Vietnam that they thought may end within a year but only ended in 1975 after major anti-war protests by the American public. Thus, was President Kennedy murdered because he blocked a larger military involvement in Vietnam while the US army thought a war may end soon?
More to read about the Vietnam war on e.g. Wikipedia.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

(18l) Belgium, king Leopold II and Congo

Image
Leopold II in Congo Belgium has a terrible human rights track record because of its second king Leopold II (1835 - 1909) during whose reign millions of people in Congo died. People may say he is not personally responsible but the same can be said of Hitler. However, Leopold II could have ruled only Belgium but this he considered too small and thus he lobbied to gain Congo for himself and succeeded on the condition he would treat its people correct, something he refused to do from day one. Therefore, he is responsible as he actively searched for this expansion to enrich himself so he could enlarge his own glory in his kingdom Belgium with neglect of his "subjects" in Congo. And people in those days had already a conscience because the king had to replace the first ambassador who refused to collaborate to expand the king's personal property.   To have an impression of the terror Leopold ii allowed in Congo is a picture in this article that shows a black father who l...
Read more

(05d) PM Merkel is against Eurobonds - I agree to some extend

I'm having again Internet after almost a three months break. Finally, back to the world. Many European politicians (and certainly economists) want to introduce Eurobonds and as I understand it, the EU may take some (most, all?) of the debts of poorer European countries and spread it over Europe so that both strong and weak shoulders will carry the problems. Of course, it is only understandable that Europe wants to help countries that are in need (as it should do because they are members). But, as the German PM Angela Merkel (a woman who thinks differently than most men and wants other solutions then the usual ones), I am against spreading debts because it will weaken every country that take some of the debts (it is similar to banks using savings of people to pay off their debts so that when people want their money the banks can't give it anymore (I wonder whether rating agencies threat some countries well so those countries are prepared to take responsibilities to save count...
Read more

Buildup of Tensions in Societies Throughout the World

Image
We notice worldwide tensions are growing within societies. This is mainly as a result of growing inequality but also other factors are involved such as a virus and climate change that destroys crops so people start to migrate as essentials become rarer and thus more expensive compared with what people earn. The result is likely that increasingly people in places where the migrants move to will demand a closing of their borders. Let's discuss. Financial crisis 2008-2009 While inequality was growing as a result of what many people earned versus rising costs of products, this accelerated when the financial crisis was organised just over ten years ago. As a result, people lost work and many even their home such as in the USA so poverty increased although the rich became richer. But, while house prices dropped because many flats and houses became available, those with money were able to buy them cheaper and sell or rent them out to make money when property prices rose again. The problem...
Read more