From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 15:12:53 MST
*** I'd like to thank my friend Mike for posting the first part of my
response to Jeff. Here is the entire rebuttal, beginning with Jeff's
assessment of my last post.
This is in response to a MaxPlumm BBS message
forwarded by Michael Dickey.
In his message MaxPlumm misquotes, misinterprets,
misattributes, and assigns meanings unsupported by the
text and unintended by the writer. The result is a
tangled mess unqjust barely resembling a coherent
argument.
> Jeff, ...I must
> take issue with a large portion of your argument.
<snip>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861793.html
>
> Note the following excerpt:
>
> In Mar., 1946, France signed an agreement with Ho
Chi
> Minh, recognizing Vietnam as a free state within the
> Indochina federation and the French Union. ..."
>
> # I find it fascinating that you, or more
> specifically your source, cut off
> the statement here. In full, it continues
****IT DOES NOT CONTINUE**** as you state. You cite
an entirely different source. Everyone makes
mistakes, but this subject is difficult enough without
blunt misattribution.
***Perhaps your understanding of the english language is lacking, Jeff, but
Webster's College Dictionary, Third Edition, defines statement as: "a written
or spoken declaration". I am referring here to the DOCUMENT SIGNED BY HO CHI
MINH AND JEAN SAINTENY IN PARIS IN MARCH OF 1946. The website you use as a
source quotes directly from this document. But it, and you, do not include
the entire article of this document. The document does say, as you quote,
In Mar., 1946, France signed an agreement with Ho Chi
> Minh, recognizing Vietnam as a free state within the
> Indochina federation and the French Union. ..."
***But then, THE DOCUMENT FROM WHICH THIS WEBSITE QUOTES CONTINUES ON THE
VERY NEXT LINE…
In that which concerns the reuniting of the three 'Annamite Regions'
(Cochinchina, Annam, Tonkin) the French Government pledges itself to ratify
the decisions taken BY THE POPULATIONS CONSULTED BY REFERENDUM.
That is article one of the document in its entirety. The entire document can
be found, among other places, in Frederik Logevall's "The Origins of the
Vietnam War", p. 100
So, once again, there were no such referendums ever held. Therefore, this
document is a dead letter. So, before you magically wave off an argument that
challenges your position, let us be perfectly clear on this. I am quoting
from the document itself, not "some other source" as you claim. Are you
somehow suggesting that your website which edits the document takes
precedence over the document signed by Ho Chi Minh himself?
>I direct your attention to that last bit: "...Vietnam,
of which Cochin China was then recognized to be a
part." So from 1949 to the onset of the Geneva
Conference, Vietnam was all of Vietnam, the combined
regions of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China.
***These are YOUR WORDS, taken from your first response to me. Now, you
clearly state that as of 1949 Vietnam was all of Vietnam. This was achieved
through the Elysees Agreement, signed by French President Vincent Auriol and
Bao Dai. This document acknowledged Bao Dai as chief of state in Vietnam. It
was ratified by the French Government on March 12, 1949. If you accept that
this agreement made Vietnam one nation, THEN you must also recognize Bao Dai
as chief of state. Though you seem to enjoy picking and choosing which parts
of documents you wish to use, it only diminishes your already weak argument.
# You have previously stated that the 1946 agreement
> that Ho Chi Minh signed with Jean Sainteny was the
> legally binding force with regard to Vietnam,
Quote me if you wish. And then offer interpretations
of the quote if you wish. But please refrain from
putting words in my mouth. I made no such comment. I
referenced the document to show what was going on at
one moment in time. The document is a document, and
as such is regarded by various persons in a manner of
their choosing. The document had some force and
effect. Exactly what, is subject to interpretation.
***In what sense? The 1946 agreement was not ratified, nor were the terms
agreed to ever carried out. The 1949 Elysees Agreement was ratified, and
signed by the French President. Under any criteria, it had more "force and
effect." So, if you are not basing Ho's "legitimacy" on the 1946 agreement,
what do you base it on?
You state above, about the document: "the agreement
that you base your assertions upon was never ratified
by the French government..."
It is my impression that ordinarily when a governement
gives its representative in a negotiation the power to
make an agreement, then the agreement is binding. At
least to the degree that any government considers
itself bound by any agreement it signs.
***Yes, I would think a government would consider itself bound to an
agreement, IF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WERE CARRIED OUT.
> Yet here, you acknowledge the legitimacy of the 1949
> Elysees Agreement between Bao Dai and French
> President Vincent Auriol,
I didn't even mention--much less acknowledge any
possibility of legitimacy regarding--that instrument
of recalcitrant colonialism.
***Again, either you have an incredibly limited understanding of this
subject, or you are deliberately playing dumb. Let us go back to your own
words, lest you accuse me or some vast "anti-communist conspiracy" of putting
them in your mouth:
I direct your attention to that last bit: "...Vietnam,
of which Cochin China was then recognized to be a
part." So from 1949 to the onset of the Geneva
Conference, Vietnam was all of Vietnam, the combined
regions of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China.
***You unmistakably define Vietnam as being one nation after 1949. Therefore,
you acknowledge the Elysees Agreement. Therefore, you acknowledge Bao Dai as
head of state. If you do not understand what you are writing, that is not my
problem.
# Again, if there are any errors or lack of facts
here, it is clearly on your side of the discussion.
So you assert, but the documents--but more to the
point, the untortured facts--tell another story.
***It is laughable, at best, that you attempt to justify your position
through said documents when you don't even realize that web sites are quoting
from them. Speaking of "untortured facts", you did a marvelous job of not
responding to any of my specific allegations of North Vietnamese violations
of the Geneva Accords. As witty as your "bomb the hell out of people" line
was, you did not answer my questions. For starters, why would David
Chandler, a left of center Australian academic with no love for the United
States government, state emphatically in his biography of Pol Pot that the
Khmer Rouge victory "was unthinkable" without North Vietnamese aid?
Additionally, you also said it was obvious that Ho would win, because "he won
independence for his country." Amazing, here I thought it was the
indispensable Chinese and Soviet aid, that the French didn't even know the
Viet Minh possessed, that won the day in the First Indochina War. But then,
any suggestion that Ho was a communist is mere "anti-communist
fundamentalism" in your mind, and we know that when Jeff waves his magic
wand, all other arguments disappear.
Your favorite devout anti-communist,
Max Plumm
At every turn, we have been beset by those who find everything wrong with
America and little that is right.
-Richard Nixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST