Support the French colonialists and the Japanese and the other oppressors of the Vietnese people all you want.
Nothing I said supports any of those things. I understand those things, their causes, and those are matters of circumstance and history. Understanding them isn't supporting them.
I also understand Ho Chi Minh. I don't pretend to understand him well...but that's not for a lack of trying. There's simply too much mythologizing of the man to understand him well.
I don't see any reason to believe that you understand Ho Chi Minh, the Japanese imperialism of it's post Meiji Restoration, or even the troubling nature of political dogmatic ideologies like Communism. You clearly don't.
That's why you can recognize that Ho Chi Minh was the man who essentially started the process of ending foreign rule in his country....and he did it by torturing, murdering, and imposing his own tyranny on his own people.
Is that "better" than the subjugation and economic exploitation of a colonial civilization like France? I can make a good argument for or against that....on either side of the argument. I don't think you can.
That's why it's always going to look, from my perspective....goofy...to see someone praising Ho Chi Minh.
When you choose to, actually investigate the war between the Ho Chi Minh and the Japanese, and between Ho Chi Minh and the French and between Ho Chi Min and the US.
Unless there's some evidence I'm not aware of....I'm certain I understand all those wars better than you. That treaty you seem to imagine that the US reneged on never got signed by the two nations that absolutely had to sign it....the US, which had been insistent upon free and fair elections, and the delegation of Ho Chi Minh (who represented Vietnam), who had effectively beaten, killed, and tortured half of Vietnam into a state of total political oppression of any anti-communist political ideology.
That's why it didn't get signed, and I'm glad we didn't.
Believe what you wish. This is a truth free zone. Facts are for you to choose.
This is just you demonstrating a lack of understanding of truth and facts. No...I don't get to choose facts. There is no such thing as a truth free zone. Truth is the apprehension of objective reality....and even when someone is lying, or wrong about that objective reality, that doesn't change the state of truth in an objective reality.
========
The reality is that the Geneva Accords called for elections.
Was this done in Geneva?
The West was going to lose,
Agreed. The west wanted free and fair elections and Ho Chi Minh had ensured that wasn't possible....because he's a communist.
I wouldn't describe that as "losing". Not agreeing to allow elections under a nation where communists are beating and killing political opponents is the right thing to do.
and the West refused to have the elections to determine the government of Viet Nam.
Yeah.
The West chose dictatorship over elections,
Is there another option when free and fair elections are impossible?
and a continuation of the French War, with the US taking over, and escalating it for a dozen years. Finally, the West withdrew its warriors and left.
Yeah, we tried to free the Vietnamese from the horrors of tyranny that accompanied every communist regime. Vietnam, as I can only imagine, is essentially a totalitarian state. Luckily, this didn't go as badly for the Vietnamese people as it did for others. That mainly appears to be a result of the cross-cultural confusion of trying to understand Marxism. Marxism hides its dumb and nonsensical aspects behind an ideological wall of philosophical sophistry. Without any understanding of the philosophical sophistry (aka Hegelian dialectics) it becomes unclear what it proposes to achieve. It may be that Ho Chi Minh really only understood the one thing that it's good for....using violence and intimidation and resentment to create a political environment of suppression of competing ideologies and violent overthrow of governments. It can be described as a recipe for revolution that can be tailored to the tastes and circumstances of a particular culture, nation, or group.
The big problem of course, is that it doesn't have any plan whatsoever for what should follow the revolution...except for a badly conceived idea for an economic system called socialism that never works (because it's based on an idealized version if humanity that does not nor will ever exist).
So Vietnam got to the point of succeeding in the revolution and overthrowing the government and faced the problem all communists face....what to do next? They were lucky, because other communists had tried before them....they saw socialism fails. They also invaded Cambodia, who happened to be under one of the most brutal examples of the possible results of communist revolutions. They experienced, what the US experienced, as invaders of a foreign country that initially greeted them as liberators and grew to hate them as occupiers... and so I would have to think these experiences moderated their hostile view of the west and their devotion to communist dogma.
Again, professing my ignorance on a lot of the details, Vietnam is basically a 1 party totalitarian state that never managed to understand the modern economic system of capitalism, though it has tried to emulate it.
