Was Vietnam's sovereignty violated when the US entered and caused the Vietnam War?

[Gaius Baltar]

By no means was the US alone in its involvement in the Vietnamese conflict. The governments of Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Australia, along with traditional US allies France, and Great Britain supported the formation of a non-communist government in the south. And it was the Geneva accords in the summer of 1954 that created the north and south divisions in Vietnam along the 17th parallel.

[ChildOfDragon]

And it was the Geneva accords in the summer of 1954 that created the north and south divisions in Vietnam along the 17th parallel.

No, it didn't. This is a mere myth. Nowhere in the accords allowed for the creation of the South nor renounced the sovereignty of the North over the South.

[Basileia ton Rhomaion]

No, it didn't. This is a mere myth. Nowhere in the accords allowed for the creation of the South nor renounced the sovereignty of the North over the South.

I am not sure if it was your intent to do historical discussion or just try to carve out an agenda disguised as a history related discussion. I think, from your behavior, this 'discussion' needs to be moved to Political Mudpit or so.

And yes, Geneva Conference of 1954 did divide the state of Vietnam into South and North. South was formally organized in 1955 and maintained relations with U.S. However, I do feel that this will be denied again given how others' responses were received.. My first and last post in this matter.

[ChildOfDragon]

I am not sure if it was your intent to do historical discussion or just try to carve out an agenda disguised as a history related discussion. I think, from your behavior, this 'discussion' needs to be moved to Political Mudpit or so.

And yes, Geneva Conference of 1954 did divide the state of Vietnam into South and North. South was formally organized in 1955 and maintained relations with U.S. However, I do feel that this will be denied again given how others' responses were received.. My first and last post in this matter.

The Accords specificially stated

6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present declaration and in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam.

12. In their relations with Cambodia, Laos, and Viet-Nam, each member of the Geneva Conference undertakes to respect the sovereignty, the independence, the unity, and the territorial integrity of the above-mentioned states, and to refrain from any interference in their internal affairs.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_F..._July_21,_1954

So, the Accords insisted that there is no border between the South and the North, and Viet-nam is ONE country. The division was merely military, between the army of France in the South and the army of Vietnam in the North.

Did the Accords say anything about "From now on, there will be two Vietnam"? No.

Did the Accords say "A new government will be created in the South"? No.

Did the Accords say "the Democratic Republic of Vietnam will renounce its sovereignty over the South, so that the South won't be a part of Vietnam anymore"? No, of course.

If you think that "Geneva Conference of 1954 did divide the state of Vietnam into South and North", please quote which part in the Accords stated that? Thanks you.

[conon394]

And number 7 occurred in the North when?

"7. The Conference declares that, so far as Viet-Nam is concerned, the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity, and territorial integrity, shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot."

[Gaius Baltar]

The Accords specificially stated ...

Did the Accords say anything about "From now on, there will be two Vietnam"? No.

Unfortunately I think you have adopted the position that the Viet-Minh forces were "sovereign" , however, large portions of the Vietnamese population did no accept or want to associate themselves with them. There was no recognized legitimate government, and the allied Vietnamese in the south did not want to live under communist rule.

[ChildOfDragon]

Unfortunately I think you have adopted the position that the Viet-Minh forces were "sovereign" , however, large portions of the Vietnamese population did no accept or want to associate themselves with them. There was no recognized legitimate government, and the allied Vietnamese in the south did not want to live under communist rule.

1. According to US President Eisenhower: "possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh". So the "large portions" you mentioned, if any, were insignificant.
2. The sovereignty of Vietnam was legally and willingly transferred to the Vietminh force by the last king of Vietnam on August 30 1945, to establish the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. So the Vietminh was indeed sovereign.
3. You said "recognised", but by who? The international community? Remember, at that time, half of the world were still slaves in colonies, and most of the rest half were greedy colonialist and imperialist nations. What kind of legitimacy do you expect from their recognition?
4. The "allied Vietnamese in the south" were basically French collaborators who worked for the enemies against their fellow countrymen and should have had no right to demand anything.

[conon394]

1. According to US President Eisenhower: "possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh". So the "large portions" you mentioned, if any, were insignificant.

They had this chance in the North when in the 50s?

[ChildOfDragon]

They had this chance in the North when in the 50s?

They who? That was for the entire Vietnamese population, not only in the North. The US, by illegally creating South Vietnam, denied the Vietnamese their chance.

[conon394]

They who?

That would be my question to you. Seeing as Cambodia and Laos as constructed out of the accord Geneva Accord clearly overlap the height of the Nguyen dynasty it certainly was not allowing everyplace that once was 'Vietnam' vote. Secondly of course the Nguyen dynasty was hardly a construction of democracy or the French rule so... But my main point was neither was the Viet-Minh rule in the North. My question was when did the Viet-Minh carry out a UN monitored free and fair election in their zone. Just because the US maneuvered not to in the South why not carry out clause seven unilaterally? I can't see any illegality in US actions any more than that of the Viet-Minh. And if you seek a trial in equity you do need clean hands what about the neutrality of Laos?

[ChildOfDragon]

That would be my question to you. Seeing as Cambodia and Laos as constructed out of the accord Geneva Accord clearly overlap the height of the Nguyen dynasty it certainly was not allowing everyplace that once was 'Vietnam' vote. Secondly of course the Nguyen dynasty was hardly a construction of democracy or the French rule so... But my main point was neither was the Viet-Minh rule in the North. My question was when did the Viet-Minh carry out a UN monitored free and fair election in their zone. Just because the US maneuvered not to in the South why not carry out clause seven unilaterally? I can't see any illegality in US actions any more than that of the Viet-Minh. And if you seek a trial in equity you do need clean hands what about the neutrality of Laos?

Your question is meaningless. How or when to conduct the election was a purely private and internal issue of the Vietnamese people. It had nothing to do with the fact that the US used Diem as their puppet to create a new state on the southern territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Creating a new state on the territory of an already existed state is illegal, and in fact, an act of war.