No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Although several years have passed since the end of America's involvement in Vietnam, this war remains a highly controversial subject about which great reservoirs of heated emotion are easily let loose. No consensus has been reached concerning the lessons American foreign policy should have learned from this experience, and perhaps more important, how such situations should be approached in the future. Indeed, the dialogue on Vietnam that has taken place among political leaders, scholars, and the public at large has scarcely touched upon this issue at all, but has instead focused upon the question of which segment of American society's actions were justified at the time and which were not. Most recently, the study by Peter Braestrup, entitled Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington, has drawn the conclusion that the American military actually won the Tet offensive, but the media unjustifiably portrayed it as a defeat. Others, such as Robert Gallucci in his book Neither Peace Nor Honor: The Politics of American Military Policy in Viet-Nam, have described how the Pentagon continually claimed that the war was being won in Vietnam when actually it was being lost. In short, the dialogue on Vietnam that has taken place since the war has been primarily a restatement by various people of the same views they held during the war.
1 Devillers, Philippe, Histoire du Viet-Nam de 1940 à 1952 (Paris, 1952), p. 81.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., pp. 107–113.
3 Ibid., pp. 123–25.
4 Ibid., pp. 137–43.
5 Lacouture, Jean, Cinq hommes et la France (Paris, 1961), p. 37–39.Google Scholar
6 Devillers, , Histoire du Viet-Nam, pp. 144–50.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., p. 169.
8 Ibid., pp. 191–93.
9 Ibid., pp. 203–204.
10 Ibid., pp. 213–18.
11 Ibid., pp. 219–25.
12 Ibid., pp. 254–255.
13 Ibid., pp. 287–88.
14 Ibid., pp. 98–100.
15 Firth, Raymond, “The Peasantry of South East Asia,” International Affairs (London) 26 (10 1950), 503–514.Google Scholar
16 Devillers, , Histoire du Viet-Nam, pp. 202–204.Google Scholar
17 Sainteny, Jean, Histoire d'une paix manquée: Indochine 1945–1947 (Paris, 1953), p. 57.Google Scholar
18 Ibid., pp. 182–83.
19 Devillers, , Histoire du Viet-Nam, pp. 225–26, 250.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., pp. 256–66.
21 Sainteny, , Indochine 1945–1947, pp. 203–205.Google Scholar
22 Devillers, , Histoire du Viet-Nam, pp. 269–70.Google Scholar
23 Ibid., p. 301.
24 Ibid., p. 302.
25 Ibid., pp. 304–305.
26 Sainteny, , Indochine 1945–1947, pp. 208–209; 248–52.Google Scholar
27 Brimmell, J. H., Communism in South East Asia: A Political Analysis (London, 1959), p. 184.Google Scholar
28 Frankel, J., “Soviet Policy in South East Asia,” in Beloff, Max, Soviet Policy in the Far East 1944–1951 (London, 1953), pp. 224–25.Google Scholar
29 Auriol, Vincent, Journal du Septennat 1947–1954; Tome 1–1947 (Paris, 1970), pp. 212–217.Google Scholar
30 Pauker, Guy J., The Soviet Union and Southeast Asia: RAND P — 5080 (Santa Monica, 1973), p. 18.Google Scholar
31 Aron, Raymond, L'âge des empires et l'avenir de la France (Paris, 1946), pp. 349–50.Google Scholar
32 Quoted in Moneta, Jacob, La politique du Parti communisie français dans la question coloniale 1920–1963 (Paris, 1971), p. 158.Google Scholar
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., passim.
35 Devillers, , Histoire du Viet-Nam, p. 289.Google Scholar
36 Ibid., p. 329.
37 Ibid., pp. 335–37.
38 Ibid., pp. 349–57.
39 Marchand, Général Jean, Le drame indochinois (Paris, 1953), p. 10.Google Scholar
40 Devillers, , Histoire du Viet-Nam, p. 387.Google Scholar
41 Ibid., pp. 389–90.
42 Auriol, , Tome I — 1947, pp. 399–401.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., p. 498.
44 “La France reconnaît solennellement l'indépendance du Viêt-Nam, auquel il appartient de réaliser librement son unité. De son côté le Viêt-Nam proelame son adhésion a l'Union Française en qualité d'Etat associé à la France” (Devillers, , Hutoire du Viet-Nam, p. 431).Google Scholar
45 Auriol, Vincent, Journal du Septennat 1947–1954: Tome II — 1948 (Paris, 1974), p. 655.Google Scholar
46 Ibid., pp. 476, 485–87, and 497–89.
47 Ibid., p. 256.
48 Drachman, Edward R., United States Policy Toward Vietnam, 1940–1945 (Rutherford, New Jersey, 1970), pp. 147–58.Google Scholar
49 Auriol, , Tome II — 1948, p. 466Google Scholar
50 Ibid., p. 470.
51 Devillers, , Histoire du Viet-Nam, p. 472.Google Scholar
52 Quoted in Blum, Robert M., The United States and Vietnam: 1944–1947Google Scholar, a staff study for the U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 92nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, D.C., 1972), p. 21.
53 Ibid.
54 Nguyen, Hoang, U. S. Aggressive Activities Against Viet-Nam (Peking, 1950), p. 13.Google Scholar
55 Ibid.