Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

That claim was reinforced by the PBS documentary series on Vietnam. That program was countered by a relatively little-known documentary Televisions’ Vietnam: The Real Story. It can be watched here on You Tube. The participants include Stephen Morris, a historian of Vietnam, who states:

If he was primarily a communist, as I’ve argued, this means that he did constitute a security threat to the United States and the free world, because of his commitment to the internationalist communist community, led by the Soviet Union. The second reason is, if we recognize the fact that he was primarily a communist, we understand why his victory constituted a great setback for the cause of human rights in his own part of the world, because, as a communist, he felt it necessary to use aggressive violence against non-communists who might potentially threaten his power.

That documentary, shown on a few PBS stations in 1985, made the salient points that were all but ignored by the editorial writers and pundits, who preferred to continue with the usual narrative about Vietnam — that of the left who saw Ho Chi Minh as a righteous leader of democratic forces fighting for his people’s freedom.

Today, as Vietnam’s still-Communist government moves along with a state-controlled capitalist economy guided by a rigid one-party state, its leaders have, as even The New York Times put it:

[The authorities]… cracked down at home, imprisoning bloggers, religious leaders and dissidents; curtailing labor laws; and again taking control of what one Vietnam expert called the “commanding heights” of the economy.

Ho Chi Minh is long gone; his legacy lives on in the Communist-controlled Vietnam he created. Improving relations, trade, and mutually beneficial arrangements between our country and Vietnam should not include continuing to spread the myth about Vietnam’s founder seeking a country modeled on our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Can’t President Obama move beyond the myths of the anti-war movement that his mother and other mentors evidently taught to him?

Related:  Congresswoman: Obama Insulted Every Vietnam Vet with Ho Chi Minh Comments

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Who is surprised? Dear Leader was marinated in this sort of propaganda. Mama Obama (Stanley Ann Dunham) was raised by 2 pro-Communist parents and selected for all her husbands/lovers hard-left types. For example, Barack Obama Sr. praised the Soviet Union as a "stabilizing force" and blamed the world's troubles on the US and the UK. Barack Jr. is merely fulfilling the "dreams of his father."
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Is there a more clear example of the term "useful idiots?"

Although I'm not a Christian, I think this bit of Biblical wisdom applies:

Ye shall know them by their fruits... - Matthew 7:16
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (21)
All Comments   (21)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Seems like Ron Radosh regrets that the Vietnamese people rejected the future of serfdom that the US had in mind for them.
I believe that future historians will write of the great victory that the Vietnamese people, particularly the heroes of the Viet Cong and the NVA, achieved over the fascist United States, and so preserved freedom for the world.
The wannabee world dominators are back of course, and supported by the likes of Ron Radosh. The lesson they learned from the Vietnam defeat was that they needed a volunteer army, no more pesky demonstrators screaming "Hell no, we won't go". The lives of the volunteers are completely expendable, used by the world domination types like a carpenter uses nails. Broken bodies by the thousand, broken minds by the million, they don't care, only their hubris matters.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Based on your comments, I take it you're either an overgrown hippie from the 1960s-1970s whose only knowledge of the Vietnam War was from either fellow hippies or Walter Cronkite, and thus doesn't know any better, or a Communist who advocated for the North Vietnam people to gain victory for Communism. Just in case you're the former, let me explain to you somethings about your claims:

We did not go to Vietnam to conquer it, we went to Vietnam specifically to drive out Communists, who were going to conquer the region. We had no interest in dominating the world. The Communists did (look at how the USSR and China started conquering various countries and subverting them to Communism/Socialism, including Eastern Europe, North Korea, oh, and BTW, after Vietnam was "reunified," the NVA proceeded to conquer Cambodia, Laos, and all those countries). Another thing, the Vietcong and the NVA butchered thousands of people, and unlike American policy, was a creed for them. Heck, the Khmer Rouge was originally an offshoot of the NVA. And if you're going to call us Fascist, you might as well call us Communist or Socialist as well, since they all came directly from Karl Marx. But if you are in fact Communist and in fact know about those things already yet continue to knowingly claim falsehoods, then you're beyond help.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
It isn't your ignorance that is so repellent, or even your arrogance, it is your complete lack of morality. It seems that, to you and your ilk like Mr. Radosh, it is perfectly fine for the US to reach out 8,000 miles and invade a country that had no intention or capability of attacking the US in any way, shape or form, and to kill 3.5 million of that country's civilians, to lay waste to vast areas, to destroy countless villages and to leave a toxic wasteland where chemical weapons were used. All this because the US did not agree with that nation's politics!
The US intervened in Vietnam to ensure the survival of the rump of French colonialism, as personified by the Diem, Ky and Thieu regimes and thereby to ensure the availability of that population for exploitation by American corporate interests. The only "freedom" fought for was the freedom to ruthlessly exploit.
Neither is this an isolated incident. The US has repeatedly intervened in the internal affairs of foreign nations in order to further US corporate interests. Incidentally how is that laissez-faire capitalism working out for US citizens? 49 million on emergency food aid, millions involuntarily out of the workforce, real wages falling for at 20 years. But hey we can pride ourselves on having military bases in what; about 80 countries worldwide, two armies, two navies and five air forces. A fleet having 10 aircraft carrier battle groups to enforce US dogma worldwide, all with a debt load that is strangling our economy. Just a little fact: If the US did not borrow another single cent, and made a miniscule effort (say $500m a year) to pay off the direct accumulated debt of $17Tr or so, we would be debt free in about 30,000 years, not so good for a country that is only 220 years old!
So you carry on thinking inside your little box, believe the BS, and suck your mental thumb.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I take it you haven't heard of the Soviets horrific actions, or the Vietcong's actions. I think you'd probably have a very different view if you were sitting through camps where the Communists butchered anyone who was not Atheist (ie, anyone who was religious, held well paying jobs, or anything like that). I know what the Soviets did to many of us religious folk and all of that. Don't get all moralistic on me. If you had ANY idea what communists frequently did to us religious people, I assure you, you would not be saying those sorts of things.

And BTW, the NVA and Vietcong actually killed even more than that. Are you sure you're not a communist? If you are, then considering what you and your ilk tried to do with my religion, I will assure you I will make sure Communism dies. Many of us Christians were butchered because of what the Communists did.

Corporate interests? We were getting involved because we were trying to drive out Communism from the region, known as the "Domino Effect." I could care less about the country's tin reserves or anything like that. You also realize that the Vietcong and NVA frequently used their own children to bomb people, right? The reason why one of the statements for going to Vietnam was "The Virgin Mary has gone south" was a reference to the Catholics in Vietnam going South to escape persecution of the NVA. The NVA and the Vietcong were evil people. Extremely evil people.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your response explains all, you are a sky pilot.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not a sky pilot, actually. I'm a college student who has done a LOT of research on the subject. Heck, I wasn't even born at the time the Vietnam War occurred. If anything, I was born in February 1990, about a few months after the Berlin Wall fell. And BTW, I could care less about if my country was "exploiting workers" or not or even if my country was going to Vietnam for raw materials (those weren't the reasons at all, BTW, it was strictly to drive out Communism). Some of the Janitorial staff at my schools were Vietnamese who fled Vietnam because of the NVA and the Vietcong, some even were tortured at the hands of them. Besides which, I know a Polish priest who fled from Poland specifically to go into the seminary (as you may know, Communist Poland was extremely hostile towards religion, so trying to become religious in that area during the Cold War is the same as posting a "shoot me" sign on yourself.), and heck, my Uncle Bill Sweeney even nearly witnessed a potential mass-arrest/mass execution of churchgoers at the Soviet Union while he went to the country on governmental business as part of the Carter administration. He tried to find a church, a KGB agent helped him find one, and then he realized he was about to be set up to expose several churchgoers (they hid in the shadows when he entered) and most likely send them to their deaths. That action was narrowly averted, BTW. Heck, I studied the Patriot's History to the United States regarding that section, as well as the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s. I know that Communism was a terrible ideology, responsible for unbelievable amounts of mass murder, and I'm even willing to get out statistics proving it if I must.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
EJ01,
You are young and at college: I would like to ask you some questions;
what place has morality in public life?
What do you understand "morality" to be?
What is "morality" based on, in general, society wide?
How would you define a "moral code"?
If you perceive yourself to be moral, what is your morality based on?
I am not trying to be smart here, but you are the new generation, I would love to know where we are headed.
Best regards
roger in florida
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
My understanding of morality are the laws and rules God Himself set down, and the morality that comes from His dominion over us.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
my buddy's step-sister makes $67 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired for 8 months but last month her check was $15936 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.pick85.com
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I recall when Andropov took over the reins of the USSR, our media
gushed over reports that he was a fan of the Chicago Cubs and loved
Jack Daniels...or some such nonsense.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
my buddy's aunt makes $77/hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for six months but last month her check was $13039 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site... www.Can99.com
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama has all along governed with a philosophy (apparently completely unknowingly too) that one must say certain things to garner support, but what one says does not have to be followed up with commensurate action.

IE: He says he wants to "level the playing field", then he proceeds to pick the winners and losers. He says "people are hurting" and they need help, then he removes all the sensible barriers to keep those who don't need help from dipping into the honey pot. He vehemently criticizes past government actions then doubles down in nearly every respect on those same actions.

So it's no surprise to me that he can't recognize that someone else (read; Ho Chi Minh) would say one thing, but do another.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Anything that Barry Soetoro says cannot be taken at face value. It's always just a pretty little lie. He's the top nut job.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Lest we forget: Red China insulted this President by playing an insanely agiprop anthem in the White House -- just a few years ago.

The Korean War was used by the Chi Coms to liquidate those southern (surrendered) armies that had previously fought them for a quarter of a century.

Their gambit was to place Red Armies to the northwest (rear) and then feed southern armies, one by one, into the guns of MacArthur's UN forces.

Death WAS the sole purpose of those campaign years.

America took away all of the wrong lessons from that war.

We assumed in Vietnam that Red Chinese 'volunteers' would flow down as a river into Vietnam. AS IF.

The mass liquidation of the southern armies was one and done. Gutting their northern (loyal & Red) formations was never going to be permitted.

MacArthur was canned because he attempted to bring Taiwan into the theater -- and to turn the Chinese SOUTHERN boys around -- supplying them through UN ports. This gambit would've driven the Commies out of Korea entirely -- and re-ignited the Chinese civil war.

Instead, Truman decided to just solve the matter with artillery. Back home, he was ramping up the Savannah River Atomic Projects -- which monies were buried in the Korean War budgets. This atomic build up was more expensive than Korea -- yet still goes unremarked. It changed the economics of Georgia, South Carolina -- drawing labor for hundreds of miles around.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Should we really expect any less when Obumble's foreign policy advisors include John Kerry and Hanoi Jane Fonda?
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good recitation Ron, and there probably are some alternate histories where the US went into Vietnam in 1946 and everything came out roses.

But in the context of the end of WWII and the ongoing issue of the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race of the 1950s, and the Korean War, a lot of that old stuff that never happened, never happened. Some of the US moves that look questionable in hindsight, made a lot more sense in context. Beyond that deponent sayeth nada.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Listening to Obama spout the Uncle Ho loved liberty routine, Vietnam's president must have thought that the American president was off his rocker.

Obama was trying to flatter the guy by repeating that ridiculous thing.

"Can’t President Obama move beyond the myths of the anti-war movement that his mother and other mentors evidently taught to him?"

Sad to even have to ask such a question of a sitting United States president.



52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All