Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America's Albatross

In 1960 I left the US to do lay missionary teaching. Upon my return, I entered a Trappist monastery. I returned to the world in 1968 and could not recognize it as the same world I had left. I resumed teaching and students asked me my opinion on the war. I did not know what to say. 1968 was the most traumatic year I had ever seen. As a religion teacher I first saw the PBS Documentary on the Vietnam War by Stanley Karnow in the late '70's. From a reference to Peter Dewey and a book written by Archimedes Patti, I read the book and twelve years too late I understood why Vietnam was a mistake of enormous and tragic consequences. The fact that we supported Ho in battling the Japanese forces in SE Asia and in recovering downed US pilots during the second WW., and promised to assist him in attaining a Vietnam independence from colonial France; and then turned our back on them to support France's economic recovery post WWII, is incredible in light of what happened in consequence. Dewey himself, a heroic member of the OSS, wired Washington when he discovered the truth that "Cochinchina(Vietnam) was burning and that the USA should get out of Southeast Asia." This book should be required reading in every school in the US, for since it has not been, we are undergoing a second war, one "preemptive" in nature, which because of information withheld, is being described as an mistaken "quagmire". Those who don't learn from history...etc I believe that a study should be done to uncover in what way Patti's book was undiscovered for so many years.

As a Vietnamese, I think this is one of the best books about U.S. and Vietnam relationship. Patti understands very well our strong desire for independence at the end of WWII and the nature of the Viet Minh movement led by our Uncle Ho. I feel really dishearted when some Americans still believe Patti was duped by Ho Chi Minh and Uncle Ho did anything to create a proletarian revolution in the world! Do they know many members of our government in 1945 are Western-educated? Vietnamese people, then and now, have always looked forward to working with American people. After a series of misfortunes, it seems that the U.S.- Vietnam relation is on the righ track now although sometimes it still bumps along a rough road because of past issues and misunderstandings.

I have just returned from Vietnam with a group of Marines I served with in the 1st Bn. 5th Marine Regiment in 1969-70. We spent a couple of days in Hanoi and were fortunate to have an hour and a half with Ambassador Peterson at the U.S. Embassy there. It is a shame our decision makers in Washington did not listen to Mr. Patti during the months of 1945 that he was assigned to Vietnam primarily to oversee the orderly release of allied POW's after the surrender of the Japanese forces who were still very much in control of Vietnam. During that time he became close to Ho Chi Minh. I was fortunate to have known Mr. Patti and had several discussions with him about that time in his life. He made no bones about the fact that Ho was wanting help from anywhere he could get it, but he (Ho) felt that the United States was the most appropriate source for help in his country's move toward independence. Ho Chi Minh told Patti at their last meeting on Sept. 30, 1945, that "he owed only his training to Moscow and for that he had repaid Moscow with fifteen years of party work. He had no other commitment. He considered himself a free agent." Mr. Patti felt that our commitment to a ten year war in Vietnam began not with our many "advisors" in the early 60's or the landing of the Marines at Red Beach in 1965, but rather our decision to support the French Colonial rule rather than an independent Vietnam in 1945.Ambassador Peterson acknowledges that what Vietnam has today would be more accurately labeled a Labor Party, rather than Communist. Free enterprise is alive and well in Vietnam today. No one can rewrite or project history, but who can say that if we had been the source of help to Ho Chi Minh's band of nationalists in the early days of their revolution, as OSS Maj. Patti repeatedly suggested, the country would be years ahead of where they are now, economically, and hundreds of thousands of lives would not have been lost in the process. Archimedes Patti wrote an article that was published in the Far Eastern Economic Review on Jan. 5, 1983 immediately after his own return to Hanoi earlier that year. In that article he recounts being shown a beautiful house the Vietnamese had reserved for an American Embassy. That was 14 years before we established diplomatic relations with them! Mr. Patti ended that article with: "I found the people, the cities, the countryside still there, still the same, waiting, waiting for a better tomorrow. For Vietnam, time has stood still." From my view, and in the view of Ambassador Peterson, time in Vietnam is finally beginning to move. I think Mr. Patti was correct in his 1945 assessment. I think after reading his book you will agree.

The view from Vietnam and South China at the end of WW2(best conveyed by General Stillwell, Bernard Fall and Patti) was overwhelmed by the paranoia and arrogance of JF and Allen Dulles and their heirs (JFK, LBJ, RMN, Henry the K). Patti may have been a tad naive, but he was also perceptive- the descriptions of Ho and his gang and what they wanted, and how they were going about it- are painful to read, because many, many people died needlessly after these encounters. We need to look very hard at this and other documentation of the actual situation in Viet Nam at the beginning of the US involvement- and during that involvement- before reaching what I believe to be highly suspect and unwarranted conclusions (e.g., Moyar's "Phoenix and the Birds of Prey"). For example, "Devil's Brigade," the story of some of the ex-SS and other German troops who avoided war crime trials in Europe by signing on with the French Foreign Legion for ten years of continued exploits up to and after Dien Bien Phu. Then there were the adventures of the Republic of Korea "Tigers" in central Vietnam- but who has written anything about them, or the Thai battalions? See- what the heck am I talking about?, right? Well, folks- we paid the bill for all those mercenaries, and a lot more (Nungs, etc.), and we're still paying debt that LBJ built up to buy those services, and the bombs, bullets, jets and aircraft carriers we wore out over there.

Archimedes Patti, an OSS agent in Indochina at the end of WWII, witnessed the postwar struggle of Ho Chi Minh to establish an independent country based on the American constitution and encouraged by the principles of self-determination espoused by Woodrow Wilson at the end of WWI. If Patti's story is to be believed, it will come as a deep shock to Americans. The author posits that beginning with the Treaty of Versailles ending the Great War, Ho Chi Minh attempted to secure American support for an independent Vietnam. He admired the principles of America's founding fathers and even went so far as to deliver his own self-styled Declaration of Independence. Despite sympathy from those Americans "in country", these overtures were snubbed by Washington and Vietnamese desires for independence were sacrificed to the interests of maintaining relationships with America's allies, France and Britain. The author presents a well-written, fascinating history of an important period for Vietnam that set the stage for America's later involvement in Indochina. Many are very familiar with events after 1954, but by that time it was almost too late for the US to turn back from the course it had taken. Biographies and personal accounts from intelligence officers always need to be digested carefully. Nevertheless, this book deserves more serious attention. If there was a chance for the US to back Ho, then it makes the sacrifice of those that gave their lives in Indochina to defending it from communism much more of a tragedy. "Our Ho" by Alan Trustman is the latest book to take up this story. It will be interesting to see how it compares with "Why Viet Nam?".