When the Nixon (R) administration sought a treaty with North Vietnam, were they appeasing the enemy?

Question

My history books outline that Nixon and Kissinger spent several years seeking a treaty with the communist regime in North Vietnam over the "Vietnam Conflict". Fact is, Vietnam wanted independence, and, not a puppet government installed by the west.

Brian, I point this out, because Republican apoligists state that Democrats are appeasing the enemy, it is a question of measure and irony.

Answer 1

Nixon was trying to set-up a condition of non-US direct involvement, which the US media and population wanted, where the South Vietnamese could remain free of attacks from the North Vietnamese due to threats of retaliatory US air-strikes.

Nixon had a harder time getting the South Vietnamese leadership to the bargaining table than the North Vietnamese because although the US was losing the war of public opinion at home, the North Vietnamese had suffered significant military losses to a heavily US supported South Vietnam. The North was nowhere near defeat, but saw a cease-fire or treaty as a chance to regroup. The promise of US air-support is what got the South Vietnamese leadership to the table. Agreements were then made, but due to the Watergate scandal Nixon was unable to convince Congress to approve the funds needed to fulfill his promise. It was then only a matter of time before an unsupported South Vietnam fell to a North Vietnam that was heavily supported by the Soviets and Chinese.

While it is true that the South Vietnamese leadership did not enjoy popular support, this does not indicate that the population was pro-Communist. This is evidenced by the approximately 2 million "boat people" that scrambled to leave Vietnam after the fall of Saigon. Also, if a population supports you, why the need to re-educate large numbers of them?

What does all this say to me?...

That the Nixon administration's actions were far more complex and uncontrollably influenced than to label them with one simple word "appease".

To say that Vietnam wanted independence and no puppet government is true, but to sum-up the hopes, desires, and dreams of each individual Vietnamese person with the homogeneous word "Vietnam", like the whole populace was unified lock-step, is no less disingenuous than saying there is a unified vision of "America" held by all US citizens.

Answer 2

North Vietnam wanted South Vietnam under it's communist control. It is double-talk to consider Vietnam independent. It is just as dependent on China as Cuba was on the Soviets. What Nixon was seeking was not appeasement. Appeasement is when you just let the aggressor have whatever he wants without putting up a fight. America fought for ten years. What we were seeking is what we sought in the Korean conflict. With no willingness on the part of the American people to go all out and possibly have China and the USSR do the same, the President did the only thing left to do honorably. He was negotiating an end to hostilities.

The use of the word Puppet Government is very telling. When a communist government like china installs a communist government in another country that is one thing. If America helps install a democratic government then it is a puppet.

Don't believe for one minute that Ho-Chi-Minh was not a puppet of Red China.

.

Answer 3

Kissenger was a representative in the talks over a cease fire and 'end of hostilities'. There was never a discussion of a 'treaty' by the US, the UN however did have that as a goal. Fact was Vietnam was in a civil war and the Russian backed communists slaughtered 3 million non combatants just because of their age, profession or gender. Even the most staunch critics of the war during its worst, have reached consensus that the pull out of all peace keeping forces from south Asia resulted in a genocide not seen since WWII. And the Republic of South Vietnam was independent that is why the North invaded.

Answer 4

Don't mast wars end either with the total defeat of one party and/or a treaty? Discussing a treaty doesn't seem that unusual. I'm sure Nixon was trying to extract us from the situation caused by his Democrat predecessors as gracefully as possible. It didn't work out but was worth a try.

I kind of got it but just pulling out isn't really the same as sitting down to hash out an agreement. I wish it were that simple in Iraq.

Answer 5

Nixon was fulfilling his campaign promise to bring "Peace with Honor." He did not care less about what Vietnam wanted, only that the American people wanted out of Vietnam and he did not want to appear to be selling the Saigon government out.

Who knows, there may have been a secret accord which provided that the NVA would not take over for a period of time to give us some room to withdraw and make it seem like the subsequent fall of Saigon was not Nixon's fault.

Answer 6

Nixon made the best deal he could and tried to paint as rosy a picture on it as he could. Not only did we not learn any lessons there, now Bush wants to drag it up all over again for his political gain. It's long over, let our boys rest in peace.

I hope you republicans remember that he left POWs there to die, just as presidents after him made no attempt to get them out.

Answer 7

No,they hammered the bastards to the table and got a ceasefire in place.
They did that by throwing away the Johnson Rulebook on how to fight the war and agressively bombed the North,went after sanctuary zones and killed the enemy wherever they found them.

Answer 8

Your crazy. Nixon was the best president we ever had and a good Republican.
We should have stayed in Veitnam allot longer but it was the liebral media and all the hippys fault for deviding our nation and making us leave.
They want to do the same with Iraq. We could have defeted all the communests but we were'nt even in Veitnam all that long we could have stayed years longer.

Whoes Kissinger?

Answer 9

you say appeasement, i say cut & run...eisenhower never should of started a war there