disappointing for him when they all he wanted to do was party, you know, so, so what do you think? is that all right? well, i enjoyed it very much. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." it has been 50 years since the signing of the paris peace accord, which ended direct u.s. involvement in the vietnam war. here is president richard nixon from january 23, 1973 announcing the agreement. [video clip] >> i have asked for this radio and television time tonight for the purpose of announcing that we today have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in vietnam and in southeast asia. the following statement is being issued at this moment in washington and -- at 12:30, paris time today january 23, 1973, the agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in vietnam was initialed by dr. henry kissinger on behalf of the united states and special advisor on behalf of the democratic republic of vietnam. the agreement will be formally signed by the parties participating in the paris conference on vietnam on january 27, 1973 at the international conference center in paris. the cease-fire will take effect at 2400 greenwich mean time january 27, 19 73. the united states, the democratic republic of vietnam express a hope this agreement will ensure stable peace in vietnam and contribute to the preservation of lasting peace in the china and southeast asia. that concludes the formal statement. host: that was richard nixon 50 years ago. we are joined now by pierre asselin, a history professor at san diego state university. welcome to the program. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: we will be talking about the paris peace accord and the vietnam war if you would like to join us and ask a question or share your thoughts. feel free to do so on our lines by region. if you are in the eastern or central time zones it is (202) 748-8000. if you are in mountain or pacific it is (202) 748-8001. if you are a vietnam vet or family of a vietnam vet, we have a line set aside for you. that is (202) 748-8002. pierre, when that agreement was signed, tell us about what was happening in the vietnam war, what the death toll was like at the time. guest: you know, by the time the agreement is signed, everyone is exhausted. not just the american people, dramatic as this war was for americans, for the vietnamese, i am sure you can imagine, this was traumatic. it is remembered, this is a war that came on the heels of a previous war against france, which had been preceded by a very blue occupation of vietnam and the rest of indochina by jeff vance. the announcement that the war was coming to an end, that offered tremendous reprieve and a sense of optimism. at the same time, the war was far from over at this point. by now, approximately 68 -- 58,000 americans had died. nearly 2 million vietnamese had perished. this is the situation we have as of 1973. we've got basically people leading on both sides, but especially the vietnamese side. i want to stress that. traumatic as this war may have been for americans, we need to understand kind of impact the war of that magnitude had on the vietnamese themselves. both sides of the parallel. host: i want to talk about the talks themselves. before we do that, i want to ask about -- as you said, it did not into hostilities. it was almost called the war after the war. what was happening after the accords were signed? guest: so, the paris agreement ends american involvement in what is fundamentally a vietnamese civil war. the vietnamese civil war begins in 1945. some of your listeners and viewers might be familiar with hoshi ming declaring independence on september second, 1945. from that moment on, fighting begins in vietnam between vietnamese communists and their followers and vietnamese anti-communists and their followers. then, the french come in to try and colonize. the french presidents -- presence amplifies. essentially, despite the involvement of the americans, the civil war remains. in 1973, when we announced the signing of the paris agreement, what we were early announcing is the end of american involvement in this ongoing vietnamese civil war. the civil war begins in 1945, it essentially becomes americanized in 1965. it is officially d americanized in 1973, but resumes almost right away as a vietnamese civil war until that war finally ends in 1975. in this sense, what president nixon announced in 1973 is somewhat misleading. this does not ends the war in vietnam, it ends american participation in the war in vietnam. host: let's talk about the talks themselves. we know they went on for several years. talk us through the timeline and process of those talks. guest: communist leaders never wanted any sort of negotiated settlement. it following the onset of the war against the united states. in 1954, the communist authorities entered into a agreement with france. that agreement from their own perspective had turned out to be disastrous. for viennese communist authorities, there was a sense that -- vietnamese communist authorities, there was a sense there was not the end of war unless we had done absolutely everything to win it will it terribly, diplomatically and politically. in 1968, as i am sure much of your audience will understand and remember, the vietnamese communists launched this huge campaign to effectively win the war known as the dead offensive. it is a campaign of shock and awe to use american parlance, which achieved some of its purpose in a surprising shock to americans. militarily, it is a disaster for communists and authorities. which is why they decided to open talks with the americans, with the johnson administration. those talks are semi-public. and, very quickly, they are used by the different sides purely for propaganda purposes. once nixon becomes president, a second channel is open, a secret channel. it is through that secret channel that formally opens in august of 1969, that real negotiations will unfold. host: that is kissinger? guest: exactly. those are the tops kissinger was in secret -- talks kissinger was in secret involved in starting in 1969, with the individual nixon mentioned. the onset, the americans are desperate to end the war. vietnam ease communist authorities are -- vietnamese communist authorities -- both sides get more exhausted, they become increasingly productive. host: what is that exhaustion, that puts it over the edge? what was it that got the agreement signed? guest: it was the exhaustion. both signs have claimed victory, but the reality is that neither side really wanted the agreement, but both sides were forced to accept it because of circumstances. vietnamese communists launched another mutual offensive in 1972. it is another military disaster. militarily, they were spared. they need this agreement, they never wanted. tilde terribly, nixon -- militarily, nixon is successful in 1972. the mission is very unpopular. we are launching or political and to an extent democratic reasons, nixon leaves the agreement. we have this convergence in early 1973 that leaves all sides to enter into this agreement at no one really wants but everyone absolutely needs. host: speaking of nixon, one more question before we take calls. a lot of people want to talk to you. did nixon have a grand strategy for this all along? he also mentioned something called peace with honor. what did he mean by that? guest: nixon always talked about having a secret plan to end the war. he did not really have a tangible plan. this idea of peace with honor was definitely important to him. we know enough from the american records, for nixon, it was to extricate the americans from vietnam with a measure of american credibility intact. nixon understood that success to vietnam would prove elusive. the idea was to end the war in vietnam in a way the u.s. could continue waging the cold war and other parts of the world. this whole idea of peace with honor, what nixon is really doing is recycling france's approach to ending its war in algeria. the goal at that time, to talk about -- this is honor. just like the goal in algeria, nixon took four years to extricate the united states from vietnam. we always talk about the french and vietnam, sending the americans following. the war also ends in a way consistent with the french approach in algeria. host: let's take a look at president nixon's detailing the terms of the agreement. [video clip] >> throughout the years of negotiations, we have insistent on -- insisted on peace with honor. my address to this nation on january 25, i say the goal to be considered essential for peace with honor. in the settlement that has now been agreed to, all the conditions that i laid down then have been met. a cease-fire internationally supervised will begin at 7:00 p.m. this saturday, january 27 washington time. within 60 days from the saturday, all americans held prisoners of war throughout indochina will be released. there will be the fullest possible accounting for those missing in action. during the same 60 day period, all american forces will be withdrawn from south vietnam. the people of south vietnam have been guaranteed the right to determine their own future without outside interference. my joint agreement, the full text of the agreement and protocols will be issued tomorrow. throughout these negotiations, we have been in closest consultation with president chu and other rep resented as of the republic of vietnam. this settlement meets the goals and has the full support of president chu and the government of the republic of vietnam, as well as that of our other allies who are affected. the united states will continue to recognize the government of the republic of vietnam as the sole, legitimate government of south vietnam. we shall continue to aid south vietnam within the terms of the agreement and we shall support efforts by the people of south vietnam to settle their problems peacefully among themselves. host: that was president nixon. pierre, your reaction to that, your thoughts? guest: i think what president nixon talks about with president to being happy supporting this, as much as they never wanted a agreement and nixon had issues with turns, there was one party that really did not like and want this agreement. it was the south vietnamese authorities. they understood that from their own standpoint company communists would never hold themselves -- standpoint, communists would never hold themselves accountable to that point. at which point, south vietnamese forces would become much more vulnerable, which in turn would embolden and encourage to sustain its attacks to ultimately win all of vietnam as they did. the terms themselves, when we look at the paris agreement generally, it is a cease-fire agreement. it is in agreement that covers military aspects. the political questions themselves which are at the heart of the vietnam war are not resolved by that agreement. the paris agreement will call for negotiation between vietnamese parties, which everyone knew were going to lead to conducting. allowances are made here to get the u.s. out, but that is what is problematic about this idea of the paris peace accord. it ends american military involvement in vietnam. for vietnam itself, it does nothing to solve the fundamental problems of the vietnamese, which date back to 1945. host: let's start taking calls, pierre. john is first, a vietnam vet in moorestown, pennsylvania. good morning, john. caller: good morning, folks. great to be on with you, this is one of the subjects i take a deep interest in. i want to say to the professor, san diego state university is one beautiful campus. the other thing i wanted to mention quickly, i do not know if he uses this for his formal course he teaches, but there are two excellent textbooks i have used to study. vietnam, an american ordeal by george moss and patriots by christian giappe. a little bit of my background, i served from february of 1967 to february of 1968. i was a drafty, i wore the u.s. prefixed numbers we did back then. i was with the first air calvary division, alpha company 15 -- i was basically banished because of my so-called bad attitude about being there and the war itself, which i did not believe in any way. so, they sent me to work at a dispensary. it was a joint effort between the government, south vietnam and the 15th pinnacle italian to provide medical treatment -- battalion to provide medical treatment for the people in the -- district and province. when i left vietnam in 1968, i did a couple of months at fort campbell. after that, it was like sleepwalking. i knew things were going to get worse over there. things were not going to improve. a lot of good people, gis and vietnamese were going to die because of a war that should never have happened anyway. another question i have for you, professor, do you think the united states was basically supporting a military dictatorship in saigon? that is what i came out with years later when i studied everything. i figured, yeah, they were really -- what was the difference between not only us, but the people sitting in province that was most familiar with, to talk about --? host: ok, john. let's get an answer. go ahead, pierre. guest: for the longest time, there was an assumption the south vietnamese government was extremely corrupt, highly ineffective and dictatorial. over the recent years, my colleagues have been digging into that government. what we are finding out now, legitimate efforts were made in southern vietnam by the regime and its supporters to create an alternative to the communist dominated northern half of the country. in some respect, they were successful. it is absolutely correct, john, it is absolutely right that president chu and some of his los associates -- close associates did exhibit dictatorial tendencies. that allows for student protests. that allows for repressed, this close to independent newspapers in and around saigon at the height of the war. these are freedoms that have never been dashed by the freedom of the north. we have to be careful here. i think the u.s. in a way at the time of the cold war was trying to do by right -- was trying to do right by its allies. those allies could be problematic, but we need to stop demonizing the regime in saigon. i think a lot of what we think is based on confrontations that i think armand to account for -- are meant to account for america's failures in vietnam. it is easier to put the blame on the allies then it is to put the blame on americans themselves or their policymakers. fundamentally, what is most difficult and i have noticed this when i talk to people about the war in vietnam, it seems almost impossible to fundamentally say maybe we lost because the other guy did things better. which, i would argue why the war ended up the way it did. the u.s. did many things wrong, but also did many things right. but, the communists waged a much better war politically, diplomatically and territorially for that reason. host: a vietnam vet in west plains, missouri. joe, you are next. caller: that is right about the vietnamese. they were a little bit corrupt. our government is corrupt. to this day, it is corrupt. we were lied to by robert max amira, we rely to buy a general named west moreland. we were never winning. ok? we were never winning. nixon's speech there, he is trying to cover-up all of the mistakes. he might have been lied to, but our government is corrupt. we spend way too much money on these goofy wars we do not win. i do not think we have won a war since world war ii. this thing in ukraine, i would not give them a penny. us taxpayers are getting screwed all the time from the equipment we give -- is ukraine going to pay us back? are we going to leave it there again? the vietnam war was baloney. nixon was lied to. this guy, west moreland kept telling us we were winning. robert met nara told us we were winning. we were never winning. host: ok, joe. we got that. peer? guest: the point joe is making is a valid one. at wartime, the idea we should expect politicians to put a rosier lens over what is happening, whether things are going right or wrong, of course as a politician you have to win american lives are on the line, you have to talk about the positives. i think, yes, americans rely too. that is standard practice. i think some americans would realize, ok, the narrative by the administration is far from correct. that partially inspired the antiwar movement. in a way, we are seeing that now. we are looking at ukraine and the idea that there is good guys and bad guys. and that, everything ukrainians are doing is whatever russians are doing is problematic. i cannot help but the russians e doing is problematic. i can't help but think that soon people will realize it is not that black-and-white, not that clear cut, like vietnam was not black-and-white and clear-cut. studying the vietnam war is very interesting in that it is all good or all bad, and the reality is that it was a very multilayer conflict with some good done but a lot of bad done. there should be nothing surprising about any of that. for the sake of a row, troops on the front lines, we have to create a specific narrative of the conflict. the u.s. had done better in vietnam none of the lives would matter. the north vietnamese were similarly always lying to their people about how many casualties they were suffering in the war, but they won and that, at least to us, becomes inconsequential. host: i want to show a clip from our archives september 1990 two, henry kissinger defending the peace deal. [video clip] >> the paris accords were a major diplomatic accomplishment for americans. as part of the accords we demanded and received from hud anoi that made the withdrawal of american troops dependent on the release of our prisoners and our missing. monday morning quarterbacks cannot view that the paris accords were not perfect. i agree. to me the ideal outcome would have been an american victory but, mr. chairman, we had to deal with the war and the specific circumstances we faced. even with the perspective of 20 years i am convinced that in those circumstances no better agreement was obtainable. host: tell me a little more about how official washington responded to the paris accords. as he was saying, it is monday morning quarterbacking. how did they respond? guest: people have been longtime critics of nixon, thought about all of this and wrote about it in very, very favorable terms. to the clip that you just ran, i agree with kissinger. this was a major accomplishment. again, because, getting the hanoi vietnamese to sign any piece of paper to me was remarkable. the problem with the agreement is that nixon and kissinger would make certain promises to the north vietnamese that essentially required a rubberstamping by congress, including reconstruction assistance, for example. and, of course, congress was not interested in spending any more money on vietnam. the idea that these monday morning quarterbacks, people who were criticizing -- the criticism is very much deserved. in the way the negotiations were handled secretly created dividends but also created problems over the longer-term. given the circumstances, i think that the americans handled themselves well with the agreement but it is important not to blow it out of proportion and say that this will deliver peace in vietnam. everyone understood it wouldn't deliver peace in vietnam. it would give peace a fighting chance but -- it would give this south a fighting chance but peace would remain elusive. host: in rockville, connecticut, a vietnam that. hey, robert. caller: hi. hello? host: go ahead. you are on the air. caller: this is emotional to me. i was an 18-year-old marine. i am now 72. a little background, i was with a squad of 14 men. only one of us did not get wounded or without lost legs. i am shaking right now when i think of it. the last two months -- i love the vietnamese people. i was in a village. they were lovely people. my question for the professor, john f. kennedy was my hero. you remember what he said about our country? i can't, i am just getting upset now. my question for the professor is, if john f. kennedy, what do you think he would have done? 58,000 men left? would he have left that way or would we have won that war and stayed? guest: that is a really, really great question. based on the evidence that we have, including the presidential recordings we have sort of concluded that if kennedy had lived nothing would have changed. kennedy had talked about pulling about 1000 american forces out, but only if the situation in south vietnam improved and it never did. beyond that there were other references by kennedy and his administration to pulling out troops, but it was just to rotate them. of course, we idealize kennedy, but the idea that if he had lived things would have been different, none of this is supported by the ample amount of evidence we have from kennedy himself and his circle of advisors. beyond that, let's remember that johnson assumes the presidency among kennedy's death but retains the same team of advisors. historians do not believe that those same advisors would have given kennedy different advice. so, yeah. all this to say that kennedy said the u.s. on a collision course with north vietnam. everything that happens after his death essentially follows the course that was set during the kennedy years. for me, kennedy is really essential to the escalation of america's commitment in vietnam. it begins with truman in 1950 with support to france. it escalates under eisenhower. it is really under kennedy that the american presence in vietnam goes from about 400 americans to 16,000. we witnessed under kennedy the introduction of helicopters and significant hardware. at that point it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for johnson to simply abandon vietnam upon assuming the presidency. host: since we are talking about what if, i wonder, how would the world be different if the united states had never gotten involved militarily in vietnam? how would the u.s. and the geopolitical system be different right now? i know that it's hard to say. guest: it is very hard. vietnam was never about vietnam. in retrospect, the only people who cared about vietnam at that time were the vietnamese themselves. the americans, the soviets, the chinese, vietnam was about the larger cold war context. for me, that is why vietnam is inescapable for the americans. if you don't get involved in vietnam the chances are you will experience more fronts for yourself as you continue waging the cold war. given the context -- context is absolutely everything. i don't see how any american policymaker can avoid vietnam and retain enough credibility to keep fighting the cold war. i think if there is no war in vietnam all that does is encourage communists in that part of the world and elsewhere to push, push forward. which is what would happen after the u.s. pulls out and it is captured by communist parties. in 1975 there is leftist insurgents activity in latin america and africa that culminates in the soviets being involved in afghanistan in 1979. the domino theory may be a bit much, but there was something to the idea that if we don't try to do something to stop communism in vietnam, we are likely to have to fight it somewhere else. host: bradley is a vietnam vet in clear fort, west virginia. good morning, bradley. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, peter. a couple of questions. i was a combat engineer in vietnam from 60 to 71. we build better houses, better roads and everything in vietnam then we ever dreamed about having. just like in japan they are taking our jobs and all these foreign pieces of junk cars are coming in. nothing sets me on fire more then a vietnam veteran or veteran driving a foreign car. i lose it. i have one more question before i quit too. i have a pretty nice general electric refrigerator. it was pretty new and it broke without warning. i got apart fort and the guy came to exit. general electric. the part was made in vietnam. nothing sets me on fire more than spending money on all these countries and then they are taking our jobs. i want to answer my question about what kind of vehicle you drive in california. host: how is vietnam doing now? guest: as bradley suggested, it is doing very, very well. it is funny, mimi. during the war the vietnamese suffered tremendously. then the work comes to an end and in a way they suffer more after 1975 for a good 10 years or so. vietnam is an international pariah. there is a war with china in 1979. around that time vietnam invades cambodia and loses all of its friends. then the soviet union collapses and the vietnamese authority decides they are going to start, kind of, being nicer to other countries, including the united states. this leads to the normalization of relationships with washington in 1995 and we see vietnam trying to to more -- trying to do more in terms of integrating itself into the global economy and the international community. it is a very, very young country, a very dynamic country. vietnam, on account of the industriousness of its people, have done quite well for itself. vietnam's economy has been growing basically almost as fast as china's economy over the last 10 to 15 years. it is not surprising, as bradley pointed out, that when we look at where stuff is made a lot of it is made in vietnam. that has been a good thing for the country. we are talking about people who suffered so much as a result of war. they deserve a break. they are getting it now thanks to economic integration and the willingness of a country like the u.s. to put the past behind it and move forward. host: mountain view, california, good morning, alex. caller: thank you for taking my call. my one comment and a quick question. the reason the communists are eventually prevailed is because the majority of the vietnamese in the civil war wanted an attacker see. they did not want a western-style democracy. we americans did not have a right to go in and kill them. we ended up killing too many of them and poisoning their country with agent orange. i believe we know -- we owe them an apology and financial compensation.my question to the guest is what he thought about financial compensation for having interfered in their society? they had the right to choose the type of government they wanted, and it didn't necessarily mean we had a right to prevent that from happening. host: what do you think, peter? guest: the idea is that the vietnamese had the right to choose their government. it is important to understand that vietnamese communists, northerners who fought against americans, they were not the sole standard bearers of vietnamese nationalism. a lot of those who fought with americans were vietnamese nationalists. their story matters in there was a reason that they thought with americans at the time. if you live in orange county, for example, they are still fighting today and they believe in an alternative system. the idea of the right to choose, if you start to exercise it long before the americans became involved in their war. the u.s. comes in and does become responsible for the amount of bloodshed that he and vietnam, but it's important to understand that many vietnamese were happy to see the americans because they wanted all the help they could in precluding vietnamese communist authority from dictating and imposing their system upon them. this is a civil war. this is not a situation created by the united states. it existed long before the americans became directly involved. so, the right to choose -- and the vietnamese deciding to exercise their right, has as much to do with why the vietnam war becomes as nasty as it does. what americans did in vietnam and policymakers achieved in vietnam, it is important to recognize that there is a vietnamese agency here. that's important to make sense of the totality. host: a vietnam vet in vienna, virginia. hi, dan. caller: after world war ii and the cold war the u.s. was the only country to stand up to the communists. the communists after world war ii controlled many areas with oil. the straits of florida and a government in cuba. in south africa. in the suez canal. and of course, vietnam. vietnam -- don't forget, the day after the pearl harbor the first thing that the japanese did was take the east in these. it was over oil. the military industrial complex could not have us cut off. that is why we were there. oil and it was oil today. we were the only one to stand up against the communists because of the oil routes. they controlled the government around the oil reserves. host: what do you think? guest: this is important. the americans were not the only ones to stand up to communism in the cold war, including in vietnam. it is important to recognize that first and foremost the south vietnamese themselves stood up to the communists during the vietnam war. so, 58,000 americans will die fighting communist armies, but 300,000 south vietnamese will die fighting vietnamese armies. along fighting alongside americans were thousands of south koreans, thousands of australians, thousands of new zealanders, filipinos, there are our advisors from the republic of china, from taiwan. the u.s. was not alone in vietnam. we are talking about the cold war. this is an international system. of course, the u.s. tried to create a larger coalition as it entered vietnam, but it was never alone in fighting in vietnam. just as hanoi's armies were never alone. the soviets and the chinese provided significant assistance that allowed communist armies to fight for as long as they did. it is important to think of the vietnam war as world war -- as a world were of a different kind. this isn't just between the vietnamese and the americans. this is a cold war conflict. like so many other cold war confrontations it involved dozens of countries directly and indirectly in various capacities. host: there is a question from twitter. do you believe there was a way that north vietnam could have been defeated without massively escalating the war beyond what would be seen as acceptable? guest: no. no, i don't. i just don't see it. first of all, a lot of critics of american policy would argue that the u.s. fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. militarily the u.s. did everything they could short of dropping nuclear weapons, which was never really an option. let's look at the numbers. 58,000 americans killed, right? one million communist-led troops killed. that is a 20:1 ratio which you would take in any conflict. militarily the u.s. did everything right in vietnam. the problem is politically and diplomatically hanoi outsmarted and outplayed the united states. owing to the combination of political and diplomatic struggle it prevailed. looking back on all this, when we look at the nature of the leadership we had in northern vietnam, ho chi minh is sidelined in the early 1960's. the people in charge are hardened revolutionaries. men and women who fought for years. they are obsessed with victory. victory for them doesn't just mean liberating vietnam from foreign rule, it means imposing this communist system on all the vietnam. their level of motivation and dedication is astounding. i want to emphasize, one was talking about a bad attitude. a lot of vietnamese who fought against americans also didn't want to be part of this. just like americans they were answering to their leaders and following orders. so, a lot of people will argue that the vietnamese went to war because it was their country and -- no, no. if the vietnamese communists win because they keep the fight going and the people have no choice but to keep that fight going. by 1971-1972 a lot of people just want this to end so they can go back to their families. host: mark in new jersey. caller: it is all well and good for someone like henry kissinger to talk about monday morning quarterbacking sitting from the comfort of his office in the white house as national security advisor or the state department leader as secretary of state. i would be curious to know with the vietnam vets think about that. my real complaint is the amount of revisionist history that is taking place here. it's staggering. we are commemorating the anniversary, have ken burns, a bland neutral version of this. this is revisionist. i want your guest to answer this. this was a war against south vietnam, ok? robert mcnamara said as much when they justified their involvement by pouring this aggression from within. the so-called viet cong, a pejorative term for the national liberation front, this was south vietnamese rebelling against a corrupt dictatorship. all of the fighting took place -- not all, a majority of the fighting took place in the south. the majority of the bombing took place in the south to the extent that 30 years ago the rates of cancer were dramatically different in north vietnam and south vietnam because of the uses of agent orange and other carcinogenic chemicals all in the south. host: mark, you said you had a question? caller: i want him to address this was a war against south vietnam. host: let's get a response. guest: as i mentioned earlier, this is a solo war. i don't know if it is against south vietnam but it is a war within south vietnam, but it is a war within vietnam generally. mark talks about the viet cong, the national liberation front. the rank-and-file men and women fighting for that front are part of the front for various reasons. within the leadership of the front is accountable to hanoi. that has been established by evidence from north vietnam, from vietnamese communist archives. the idea that this is a war -- the southerners suffered tremendously and mark is right. there is more bombing that takes place below the 17th parallel than above it. this other vietnamese will suffer a great deal, but that suffering has a lot to do with the fact that this, from the very beginning, is a civil war that began a long time ago and just kept escalating as the years went by. host: peter, there has been a lot of criticism as far as when the peace accords were finally reached. do you think that they could have been reached earlier than 1973? guest: no, i don't know. not at all. there's lots of talk about nixon interfering with johnson's efforts to end the war in 1968. hanoi was never going to end the war in 1968 through a negotiated solution. similarly, no matter who was in the white house was going to enter into a negotiated agreement in 1968. circumstances just weren't favorable to that. again, the idea that we could have achieved peace in 1968, the americans are not alone in this. there are other countries involved. most important there are two important vietnamese parties involved and neither of those parties was inclined to even consider the possibility of a negotiated settlement as of 1968 unless, for the communists, that settlement implied unilateral american withdawl. and for saigon, unconditional north vietnamese surrender. host: a vietnam vet in woodberry, connecticut. good morning, barry. caller: i have two questions for you. number one. there was a book written about 15 years ago or so called "vietnam reconsidered." it was a naval professor who was allowed into the archives and he concluded that the vietnamese, the north vietnamese thought they would have to stand down if americans put enough artillery bases on the mountain tops on the ho chi minh trail. that would have at least pulled them out of the conflict. it could have been temporary. in years they could have started up again. i want your opinion on that. do you think -- guest: those are very good questions. the artillery on the mountaintops. i worked in the vietnamese archives for almost 45 years. i go to hanoi almost every year and dig through those archives. i have never seen anything about artillery being something, a major concern for the vietnamese communist authorities. what was a concern was the bombing. the american bombing of northern vietnam. so, the continued presence of the air force could have changed things, but only momentarily. american involvement in the assassination of the south vietnamese president in 1963, the americans aren't involved. this is a coup carried out by his own generals. supported by the united states. it is problematic to say that the u.s. was behind the coup. diem's own detractors were behind it, but it was helpful to know that once diem was overthrown they would be supported by washington. there is a complicity that needs to be acknowledged. as much as we want to say that the u.s. has nothing to do with it or everything to do with it, we need to recognize that the truth is somewhere in between. peter asselin that will be the last call for this segment. a history professor at san diego state university and author of "a bitter peace." evening, everyone. i'm happy to welcome all those of you who have made it in person as
Related Keywords
Taiwan , Afghanistan , United States , Paris , France General , France , Mountain View , California , China , Hanoi , Ha N I , Vietnam , Republic Of , Point Joe , San Diego State University , Russia , Connecticut , Ukraine , West Virginia , Mimi , Santiago De Cuba , Cuba , Italy , Vienna , Wien , Austria , New York , Philippines , Japan , Algeria , Missouri , Washington , Saigon , H ChÃinh , Florida , South Africa , Virginia , North Vietnam , Vietnam General , Rockville , New Jersey , Pennsylvania , South Vietnam , Italian , Americans , Soviets , Vietnamese , Filipinos , French , Soviet , Russians , Japanese , American , Henry Kissinger , Nixon Pierre , Richard Nixon , Chi Minh , John F Kennedy , Pierre John , John Parke Custis , Viet Cong ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.