View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
There were plenty of lessons from the Korean War that should have alerted U.S. leaders about the likelihood of disaster in Vietnam. General Matthew B. Ridgway, based on first-hand experience, made these arguments to President Dwight D. Eisenhower during the Dien Bien Phu crisis in April 1954. Among many of the contrast was the existence of a real government in South Korea that the United Nations had played a central role in creating. I could offer many other differences that unquestionably lowered the burden on U.S. leaders. And as for the comparison of U.S. military intervention in Vietnam with World War II, that is using a false analogy to support a fantastic misinterpretation. James I. Matray Professor and Chair California State University, Chico Quoting "H-DIPLO [Ball]" <h-d1plo@SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU>: > From: Mark Safranski <email@example.com> > > Professor Kaiser is proposing what would seem to me to be an impossibly > high burden on statesmen. The United States (or any major power) will > inevitably make any war " more destructive " if not longer, by joining > battle. The same could easily be said for American participation in WWII. > > As for changing the outcome, how would statesmen surmise that before the > fact? In the case of Vietnam, policy makers, to the extent that they may > have thought about it at all, had the obvious historical examples > or personal experience of the Korean War, the British in Malaysia, the > Greek Civil War, the Huk rebellion and so on. > > What alarm bells should have rung to make the United States walk away > from South Vietnam after, say, the Geneva conference ? Or Diem's > consolidation of power ? > > Mark Safranski > Independent Scholar >