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.
David Kaiser correctly contrasts North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong leaderships' enthusiasm for the war and the South Vietnamese leadership's preference for any solution short of war. It is interesting to note that when asked, more South Vietnamese like more Americans rejected "the peace candidates" perhaps because they correctly suspected that "neutrality" was not really on the table. Of course, during the 1967 South Vietnamese elections, both sides had the opportunity to make their case. This opportunity was denied to the North Vietnamese. Would it be unreasonable to assume that had such a choice be given to that population, they, too, would have preferred an imperfect peace to a "perfect" victory. In other words, it is unlikely that the two democracies would have fought each other. May I add that the People's Republic of China and Taiwan are facing not a dissimilar situation? Judith Klinghoffer Rutgers University David Kaiser wrote - "The parties that actually decided to fight the war, beginning in 1965, were the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese on the one hand, and the United States on the other. The South Vietnamese did not decide to fight the war. . . . In the one real election held in 1967 Thieu got less than 40% of the vote and the leading peace candidate came in second. The ARVN remained a very shaky military instrument throughout the war."