Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
87. JFK approved the Assassination of Diem, and that meant we were going into Vietnam big time.
Thu Oct 15, 2015, 10:32 PM
Oct 2015

Remember Diem was killed on November 2, 1963, three weeks BEFORE JFK was assassinated and it is clear that Diem assassination was coup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

Now Diem was a politician the ruling elite of the US love, in 1955 he received 600,000 votes from the 450,000 people who voted in the election to win the Presidency of South Vietnam (yes, 600,000 votes from 450,000 voters, you do the math). Diem had three things going for him, first he was Anti-Communist, second he spoke English, third he was Catholic (His family had been Catholic since the 1600s). The last factor may sound strange, but the Portuguese had introduced Catholicism into Vietnam in the 1600s and the Catholic were favored by the French when France ruled Vietnam. Thus for at least 300 years many of the native elites of Vietnam had embraced Catholicism and it became almost a ruling clique in South Vietnam. Diem's bother became Bishop of Hue, but never returned from Vatican II, which Diem's Brother was attending when Diem was killed.

More on Bishop Ngô Đình Thục, Diem's Brother:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C3%B4_%C4%90%C3%ACnh_Th%E1%BB%A5c

Diem's Nephew later became Bishop of Saigon (Just days before it fell to the Communists) and a Cardinal in the Catholic Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_V%C4%83n_Thu%E1%BA%ADn

11% of Ho Chi Minh City is still Catholic (Given that 70-90% of the population of Vietnam is Buddhist that is an achievement):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Ho_Chi_Minh_City

Now, Diem was a master Politican, he used his fellow Catholics as his power base but the evaluatution of him was done by Ho Chi Minh when Ho heard of the Coup:

Upon learning of Diệm's ouster and assassination, Hồ Chí Minh reportedly stated: "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."[76] The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:

"The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Diệm was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diệm. Diệm was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."[76]


Sorry, Ho Chi Minh was right, Diem was the person keeping South Vietnam from falling to the Communiusts. He had problems with the Buddhist (for his anti-Buddhist and pro Catholic promotions of Army Officers in addition to people within the Government AND for his tendency to give any aid he received to Catholic Rural Villages).

Please note, he saw his fellow Catholics as his power base, his supporters, much like Ho Chi Minh saw the Communists as Ho's power base and supporters. Religion by itself was secondary, it was the fact he and his family's power based was within the Catholic Minority was why he was able to resist the Communists as well as he did. Yes, he was crooked, but he made sure his supporters received support from him, thus he had a power base, weaker then the Communists but capable of stopping the Communists till he was killed.

As to JFK. JFK said before his own assassination three weeks later, that he had planned the Coup to include the exile of Diem, but when the Presidential palace was taken over it was clear the coup plotters wanted him dead (Diem had to much support within the Country AND within the Army to live, to many people owned Diem favors that they feared would NOT continue under the new rulers and thus would support a counter coup by Diem, if Diem was still alive to do a counter coup). LBJ had voice opposition to the coup when it came up in Cabinet Meetings (LBJ is quoted to have said "You do not kill friends", but LBJ had little power as Vice President in JFK's presidency so LBJ's opposition to the coup could not stop the coup).

Sorry, Ho had it right, Diem's death lead to chaos in South Vietnam that required American Intervention. The only way Diem's assassination makes sense is if JFK had already agreed to send in troops to Vietnam. LBJ would wait till 1965 to send in those troops, but that appears to have been the plan from the start, leave the country's military situation deteriorated and whoever succeeds Diem will do what Diem said he would NEVER do, ask for American Troops. Diem knew that US Troops in Vietnam would look like the French Troops in Vietnam prior to 1954, as an invading force even by Vietnamese people who opposed the Communists, like Diem's fellow Catholics. Thus US Troops would enhance the Viet Cong's image as patriots, and whoever is ruling South Vietnam, American's Running Dogs (To use a phase from the time period). That would lead to the over throw of his Government sooner or later thus Diem OPPOSED American Troops in Vietnam (aid, advisors, yes, actual troops NO).

In a nutshell, when JFK approved the Coup against Diem, JFK committed himself to sending in US Troops. JFK may have said other things to other people, but JFK"s action in approving the Coup clearly shows JFK wanted to send in US Troops into South Vietnam. To claim otherwise is to ignore Diem's death and that coup, and go strictly by what JFK said to people who wanted to hear that the US was NOT going into Vietnam. Most politicians will say to people what they think that person wants to hear, JFK was no different from any other politician, thus go by JFK's action not his words and JFK's action in approving the coup against Diem, meant the US was committed to sending in troops.

Now, people have mentioned JFK's withdraw of advisors for Christmas. Given the large population of Catholics in Vietnam, Christmas was a holiday among both US Troops and many Vietnamese. As a general rule both sides laid down arms before Christmas and did not take them back up til after the Chinese New Year was over (the Tet Offensive of 1968 was an exception to that rule, but the US had intelligence something was up in 1968, but decided to see what happened before doing anything, in previous years, no such intelligence was found so even the US would send advisor's home for that time period, starting in the late 1950s and continuing till the fall of South Vietnam). I bring this up, for JFK's order withdrawing those advisors from Vietnam in late 1963, was something JFK and even Eisenhower had done in previous years, thus it meant nothing but that everything was "Normal" in war torn South Vietnam in 1963.

Now, if JFK thought he was going to solve the problem of Vietnam by removing Diem he was a fool (and JFK was no fool). Such a plot would have been an issue in the 1964 Campaign, AND no President would oppose what the Majority of American people wanted and in 1964 the Majority of Americans supporting sending in troops to Vietnam if that what was needed to stop the Communists. The majority of Americans had that attitude till the middle of 1968, it is only in the summer of 1968 that most American switched to opposing the war in Vietnam. Thus JFK could NOT leave South Vietnam fall for the same reason LBJ could not leave South Vietnam fall, it would be another "Who lost China" campaign used against JFK and whoever would have been the Democratic Presidential Candidate in 1968. Thus JFK could NOT leave South Vietnam fall and that was what was going to happen due to the assassination of Diem.

Now, the North Vietnamese were NOT prepared for the death of Diem, they were shocked that JFK would be so stupid as to kill off Diem. While the North Vietnamese were unprepared, they reacted quickly, forming the Viet Cong into Battalions in 1964 (Previous to that time period the Viet Cong only operated on Company size basis). Do to that change in tactics, the US had to send in the 1s brigade of the 101st Air Mobile unit with its Helicopters in mid 1965 to stop the expansion of Viet Cong Activities and that really started the US intervention in South Vietnam.

Now, as to the coup itself, the US Defence Department opposed it, but the State Department was all for it. JFK appears to have been shocked at the death of Diem, but JFK did welcome that change in Government. The biggest problem was the people of South Vietnam had no faith in the leaders that succeeded Diem:

Following the coup, chaos ensued. Hanoi took advantage of the situation and increased its support for the guerrillas. South Vietnam entered a period of extreme political instability, as one military government toppled another in quick succession. Increasingly, each new regime was viewed by the communists as a puppet of the Americans; whatever the failings of Diệm, his credentials as a nationalist (as Robert McNamara later reflected) had been impeccable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#North_Vietnamese_involvement


Diem's death meant the US was going to intervene in Vietnam, JFK knew that for to say otherwise is to call him a fool and JFK was no fool.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The Obama Administration's normalization of the use of assassination to circumvent due process Maedhros Oct 2015 #1
90%+ of what people were outraged about hifiguy Oct 2015 #2
+1 LittleBlue Oct 2015 #3
But when Pepsi does it is fine! It's only when Coke does it that it becomes bad! nt mhatrw Oct 2015 #4
Especially if Pepsi manipulates the numbers so people can cheer the killing Catherina Oct 2015 #9
International law is for losers malaise Oct 2015 #112
In my lifetime it's become a pathetic country in so many ways. Not all, but a lot especially RKP5637 Oct 2015 #130
It has become very much like the late Roman Empire- hifiguy Oct 2015 #160
Stretched so thin, propping up the empire, while the homeland slowly rots. n/t RKP5637 Oct 2015 #166
What a sad statement. Catherina Oct 2015 #15
+1 leftstreet Oct 2015 #5
"a video game, drained of all humanity" How *cool* (barf) Catherina Oct 2015 #6
In 5-month period of a US op in Afghanistan, nearly 90% of people killed were not the targets Catherina Oct 2015 #7
You think Obama has any control over the MIC? Downwinder Oct 2015 #12
Complete, absolutely not. hifiguy Oct 2015 #17
And we don't give a shit either. zeemike Oct 2015 #24
And it doesn't even matter that the people we are killing are jwirr Oct 2015 #151
I don't think anybody who was not totally subservient Downwinder Oct 2015 #43
No one who appears to even have a chance to win the Presidency salib Oct 2015 #125
I'd peg it at FDR's death in 1944. hedda_foil Oct 2015 #146
Baseball cards for Obama to decide who lives or dies Catherina Oct 2015 #22
This is so cynical and horrible. BeanMusical Oct 2015 #53
This is so cynical Caretha Oct 2015 #65
It's about MONEY. hifiguy Oct 2015 #69
I know hifiguy Caretha Oct 2015 #77
It's about control. Feed people's fear in the west. Control populations with terror Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #85
I agree. And power, of course, which requires control. hedda_foil Oct 2015 #149
And continue to complain about Russia if they do anything. jwirr Oct 2015 #152
It's good to be the king. salib Oct 2015 #126
If the President ordered the drone strikes to stop, then they would stop philosslayer Oct 2015 #52
Is Gitmo closed? Downwinder Oct 2015 #55
The CIC doesn't have the authority to close military facilities philosslayer Oct 2015 #56
Fair enough. The CIC does have authority over Downwinder Oct 2015 #75
Transferring the detention center is unlikely to end any of problems salib Oct 2015 #128
Yes Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #84
+1 merrily Oct 2015 #20
Obama did not just "continue" the Drone Assassination program. bvar22 Oct 2015 #155
+ a bazillion marym625 Oct 2015 #168
the drone war is evil, pure and simple Fast Walker 52 Oct 2015 #173
And Obama seemed so promising with the 'Hope and Change" slogan. jalan48 Oct 2015 #8
Thankfully we have whistleblowers of conscience who take the *Change* part seriously Catherina Oct 2015 #10
You are right-thanks for sharing. jalan48 Oct 2015 #14
Every Democratic president, beginning with LBJ hifiguy Oct 2015 #18
Yep-which makes a lot of this election stuff 'pretend'. jalan48 Oct 2015 #21
The PTB are firmly against him Catherina Oct 2015 #25
Actually, I was greatly disappointed during... tex-wyo-dem Oct 2015 #136
I think there would be a coup d'etat if a President went against the military at this point. jalan48 Oct 2015 #138
There WAS a coup d'etat when a President hifiguy Oct 2015 #169
I very much doubt that. By now, someone who had left office would have made a deathbed confession merrily Oct 2015 #23
There is a Permanent Government hifiguy Oct 2015 #28
That does not really address my post. merrily Oct 2015 #29
If Jimmy Carter doesn't, no one will. hifiguy Oct 2015 #35
Yeah, I'm still thinking it would have happened by now. It's been over 50 years. merrily Oct 2015 #59
The really professional spooks take their secrets to their graves. hifiguy Oct 2015 #63
Not 50 years worth. By now, someone would have had a change of heart, been remorseful, been ticked merrily Oct 2015 #110
Plus each of those presidents had families. jwirr Oct 2015 #153
American Deep State AngryAmish Oct 2015 #116
Yup. hifiguy Oct 2015 #159
I don't think so. Even the most idealistic person becoming president over time will LiberalArkie Oct 2015 #143
It didn't have to be a President, though. merrily Oct 2015 #145
True LiberalArkie Oct 2015 #147
A number of people would have had to be involved at all times. Five, ten, fifteen--some number. merrily Oct 2015 #174
Keeping this information totally secret would be impossible. erronis Oct 2015 #148
BS. Expansion of Vietnam Nam was Johnson's policy still_one Oct 2015 #26
Johnson was leaned on very heavily to create a large-scale war in Vietnam. hifiguy Oct 2015 #31
We are going to disagree. No one pushed LBJ around still_one Oct 2015 #48
Except the Vietnam morass did stop the Great Society truebluegreen Oct 2015 #76
Go back to Truman, who fought the "Korean Police Action" and began funding Vietnam after the french merrily Oct 2015 #34
It seems to be generally accepted consensus that JFK hifiguy Oct 2015 #37
Jackie thought "Texas businessmen" had him killed. merrily Oct 2015 #58
The most convincing evidence to me that the CIA hifiguy Oct 2015 #61
JFK approved the Assassination of Diem, and that meant we were going into Vietnam big time. happyslug Oct 2015 #87
The French didn't leave Vietnam until they lost the Battle of Dien Bien Phu Art_from_Ark Oct 2015 #118
Thank you! Do you know why Truman started funding then? To keep the French fighting? merrily Oct 2015 #142
Who lost China? happyslug Oct 2015 #176
Thanks. Sending troops to Korea would be the Korean Police Action referred to in my Reply 34. merrily Oct 2015 #177
From 1946 onward the US paid for the French fight in Vietnam. happyslug Oct 2015 #178
Thanks! I didn't mean to put you to all that trouble, but I do appreciate it. merrily Oct 2015 #179
PS. Ted Kennedy was in that Korean mess, something we rarely heard about, if at all. merrily Oct 2015 #180
But JFK was already in Congress when the Korean war began and voted for it. happyslug Oct 2015 #182
Yes, JFK voted for it and his brother enlisted. merrily Oct 2015 #183
a masterstroke of cynicism grasswire Oct 2015 #44
I am not one bit more cynical hifiguy Oct 2015 #49
I've never seen it so well put. haikugal Oct 2015 #93
The Beltway assimilated Obama AZ Progressive Oct 2015 #122
I think he got "here's how things work" lessons from the NSA/CIA about spying, the military and rhett o rick Oct 2015 #129
Thank You For Sharing These Truths cantbeserious Oct 2015 #11
Scahill will be on Chris Hayes MSNBC tonight discussing this Catherina Oct 2015 #16
between this and his relatively fair treatment of bernie, restorefreedom Oct 2015 #41
I hope you're wrong but you're probably not Catherina Oct 2015 #50
yeah just caught a little of the piece on drones restorefreedom Oct 2015 #68
Thanks. I'll try to catch it n/t Catherina Oct 2015 #78
you're welcome! nt restorefreedom Oct 2015 #80
Genociding the middle east. Dont call me Shirley Oct 2015 #13
And for what? Catherina Oct 2015 #19
For the anus mundi that is the KSA hifiguy Oct 2015 #33
Don't forget .... LOCKHEED MARTIN..... MADem Oct 2015 #54
War is good hifiguy Oct 2015 #57
And there is not a candidate running who hasn't accommodated those guys in some fashion. MADem Oct 2015 #62
Thanks so much for this, Catherina. I've bookmarked, but read the thread. Sound horrific. merrily Oct 2015 #27
It's horrific. Couple this with pictures of our drone kills Catherina Oct 2015 #36
I think a lot of us were inclined to cut Obama some slack because he wasn't Bush tularetom Oct 2015 #30
It's war crimes. The MSF incident too (graphic pic / beautiful minds warning) Catherina Oct 2015 #39
Gotta keep 'murka Number One, you know. hifiguy Oct 2015 #45
I hate to say this, but Obama surrendered his foreign policy to the neocons years ago. reformist2 Oct 2015 #32
Why? 2naSalit Oct 2015 #40
I wouldn't run for president grasswire Oct 2015 #46
The first people he called in over the Arab spring in Egypt were neocons Catherina Oct 2015 #42
Drop the mic. hifiguy Oct 2015 #51
Yep. One hit after another. I so hope this new leaker never get found. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #88
Me too. And I hope he (or she) is already safely out of the country Catherina Oct 2015 #96
There's a lot of excuse making on this thread. LeftyMom Oct 2015 #38
The sooner we accept that WE are responsible the sooner things might change. Catherina Oct 2015 #47
This message was self-deleted by its author randome Oct 2015 #60
Explanations do not excuse. hifiguy Oct 2015 #64
Then you try an explanation: how would you stop these terrorists> randome Oct 2015 #70
Which ones? Hydra Oct 2015 #89
Glad you asked... Fairgo Oct 2015 #95
So you'd do nothing, then. Just let it all go and hope for the best. randome Oct 2015 #101
Thanks for that Fairgo Oct 2015 #106
You're at FAR greater risk of breaking your neck in the shower ronnie624 Oct 2015 #111
I have no anxiety regarding terrorists. None. randome Oct 2015 #120
"safeguarding Europe" ronnie624 Oct 2015 #131
Europe does not deal with terrorism> Hello, the Charlie Hebdo attack. randome Oct 2015 #158
More nonsense rationalizations. ronnie624 Oct 2015 #161
Excellent post (n/t) Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #97
Wars without End for Profits without Cease. Octafish Oct 2015 #66
I was hoping you would show up here, sir. hifiguy Oct 2015 #67
Sir, the fort then is in good hands. Octafish Oct 2015 #73
+1! And hi Octafish Catherina Oct 2015 #79
Hiya, Catherina! Great to read you! Octafish Oct 2015 #108
I checked out the link in your tag line. I only got 1/2 way through it, but it is great. GoneFishin Oct 2015 #74
Vincent Salandria was on the case Nov. 22, 1963. Octafish Oct 2015 #124
Thanks to all... 1norcal Oct 2015 #154
Agree! nt Duppers Oct 2015 #162
Kick and R BeanMusical Oct 2015 #71
"The Drone Papers". How droll. How hyperbolic. randome Oct 2015 #72
Article: "The US government kills a lot of people who aren't military target" neverforget Oct 2015 #81
What is the alternative> randome Oct 2015 #82
here are alternatives restorefreedom Oct 2015 #107
"Don't give a shit about Europe". Not much of a foreign policy, I think. randome Oct 2015 #113
don't put words in my mouth, thanks restorefreedom Oct 2015 #115
You're talking about taking the long-term view. I have no problem with that. randome Oct 2015 #119
bernie's support of the drone program restorefreedom Oct 2015 #121
The Europeans are fully capable of taking care of themselves, hifiguy Oct 2015 #175
I won't be lectured by murder apologists. Clear? Make sure it is. DisgustipatedinCA Oct 2015 #90
So you're saying that killing is bad, right> Brilliant. randome Oct 2015 #99
Was my disdain for you not clear enough? DisgustipatedinCA Oct 2015 #105
Actually whenever I see that name, I know the article is hitting the right nerve. Rex Oct 2015 #135
yep, leaves the facts in the case wholly unaddressed, intact/unrebutted stupidicus Oct 2015 #165
Noticed that too, from the first days of conversation. Rex Oct 2015 #167
yep stupidicus Oct 2015 #170
indeed, thriving on being a murder apologists stupidicus Oct 2015 #164
terrorists!? wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #91
Sure. It's all just nth dimensional chess between the MIC and humanity, I guess. randome Oct 2015 #100
if you're skeerd jump in my pocket. I ain't. n/t wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #102
Not afraid at all. 9-11 changed my life not one bit. randome Oct 2015 #114
Nice try at pretend outrage, it does not suit you well since you are horrible at it. Rex Oct 2015 #133
I'm not pretending to anything. Certainly not to having the wisdom to be right. randome Oct 2015 #157
This message was self-deleted by its author YoungDemCA Oct 2015 #83
Was there any president that WASN'T a killer? Holly_Hobby Oct 2015 #86
That is a good one, does that include when the President was NOT the President? happyslug Oct 2015 #109
Thank you for taking the time to respond... Holly_Hobby Oct 2015 #141
Jimmy Carter. Rex Oct 2015 #137
Damn. That's pretty crazy. StrongBad Oct 2015 #92
^ Out of sight nationalize the fed Oct 2015 #94
Great link! Excellent quote!! Duppers Oct 2015 #163
for those of you who don't care about sleeping tonight.. restorefreedom Oct 2015 #98
Thanks. I'll watch tonight. If it disturbs my sleep, so be it Catherina Oct 2015 #103
"you suddenly realize it was his mother's phone you've been following all the time" Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #104
mass assassins reddread Oct 2015 #117
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #123
Great post Catherina Oct 2015 #132
Wow! Bookmarking. Duppers Oct 2015 #171
Why did the original poster delete it? It's amazing. Duppers Oct 2015 #172
Isn't it freakin' great to have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House? kath Oct 2015 #127
There is a debate to be had about drones Blue_Tires Oct 2015 #134
Greenwald? MH1 Oct 2015 #139
Greenwald runs the show at the Intercept Blue_Tires Oct 2015 #150
Ok, thanks MH1 Oct 2015 #156
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2015 #140
K & R !!! WillyT Oct 2015 #144
. Autumn Oct 2015 #181
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Massive National Securi...»Reply #87