French Lessons of the War in Indochina

[Peter Lyderik]

http://www.rand.org/publications/RM/RM5271/RM5271.pdf

[Terry]

Peter

Nice long read for Indochina scholars. Would love to copy document but will use up all my ink and paper. Still a well researched scholarly document.

When in grad school saw a copy in the USAFA library .

[BobW]

Bonjour Peter,

At least the translation is honest. Volume I is not available.

Volume I is all that is needed. Otherwise, just reconstruct the events. What was really promised the General at Dien Bien Phu?

I'd rather read that Volume I than consume Louis XIII cognac. (I'll compromise; will consume both at same time.)

Saluations,
BobW

[Peter Lyderik]

Bob,

What is Volume 1 about, if you know?

[BobW]

Bonjour Peter,

Yes, Volume I is mentioned in the RAND link you posted, at the intro section.

It's the French Top Secret section dealing with the high-level political-military issues. I've only gambled 3 times in my life and have since stopped. Still, I'm willing to "bet" France's Volume I is basically discussions of the same stuff discussed by Americans, causing havoc nearby at the same time, Korea.

Saluations,

BobW

[Terry]

I'm only guessing-but a good part of it probably was discussions between Marshall Petain (Fr) and Admiral Radford (US) on the possibility of US airstrikes to relieve the seige at Dienbienphu, the POSSIBLE use of tactical nuclear weapons at the site of the battle, (as absurd as that sounds this was discussed-see Fall's book Hell in a Very Small Place) OR the possible US/Great Britian intervention to lift the seige. Again THESE A GUESSES.

[Terry]

On page 579 of Karnows' book A Complete History of Vietnam he states" Adm Radford, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff floated the notion for the use of three tactical nuclear weapons to help the French against the communist" Nixon and Secretary of State Dulles supported the idea but President Eisenhower vetoed the idea in the end.

[Eagle eye]

I'm only guessing-but a good part of it probably was discussions between Marshall Petain (fr) and admiral Radford(us) on the possibility of US airstrikes to relieve the seige at Dienbienphu, the POSSIBLE use of tactical nuclear weapons at the site of the battle, (as absurd as that sounds this was discussed-see Fall's book Hell in a Very Small Place) OR the possible US/Great Britian interention to lift the siege. Again THESE A GUESSES.The French requested a nuclear airstrike from the US during the siege and this was turned because Winston Churchill was adamantly against it among the US allies. Whether the US acquiesced to this type of "pressure" not to drop a nuclear bomb or used this "reason" we'll never know until documents are made public. Regardless, the lack of support for conventional or nuclear US air-strikes during the DBP battle and defining battle of French presence in Indochina is engraved in the FFL's psyche to this day.

There was an incident in Bosnia in 1995 when a A-10 US reservist pilot gave air support to a FFL unit in a tight spot. The FFL remembers this type of support from its Indochina history. He was invited together with his copilot to the regimental commemoration ceremony of the FFL's RMLE in 1996. I have the coordinates of Capt Lawrence in Georgia by PM for any of the regular US members on this board.

[BobW]

Bonjour Peter, Terry and Eagle Eye,

This isn't the medium to use to present my thoughts on Dien Bien Phu. Too much background has to be typed to be able to present my view.

Thus, maybe out of context;......

I think the key parties were higher than Pétain and Radford and also before them. I personally believe the fate of French Indochina was established at the WWII COnferences; Yalta, Potsdam, Teheran, Casa Blanca.

When De Gaulle declared the 4th French Republic, he renounced all French colonial and quasi colonial claims in China. This is a hint (I already said my comments will be out of a complete context !).

Another acid test I use to support my position is looking at how the Dutch left the East Indies and also the US arrangements (as sold to the American public) to give the Phillippines independence.

There are certain parallels between the politics of the Korean War and the French insurgency in Indochina.

I believe Truman continued the Roosevelt policy of seeking the French closing down of Indochina (but note: NOT British Asian colonies). I think this relates to De Gaulle's withdrawal from military NATO and his creation of his "force de frappe". Former French PM Michel Rocard had said in public that Kissinger told him that the US made a mistake re the favored position of UK over France.

I believe the French military in Hanoi were given assurances of US conventional militarily (but not nuclear) support. I believe this was a set-up by the senior US and French leadership to allow for a major defeat for French public opinion to adjust to leaving Indochina. Again, look at the Dutch and the gradual leaving of the East Indies (until 1963).

The answers are in that Volume I - that will not show up for a real long time - if ever !!

There is a strong corrolation between what was going on during the Korean War and the French counterinsurgency in Indochina. Reading the MacArthur scandals relates in a sense to the French situation in Indochina. MacArthur was forbidden to use US troops to enter Chinese territory. The Korean War is still not clearly available for review. Dien Bien Phu is less clear.

The one point that is clear - and always will be - is that the troops will bear the burdens and others get the benefits.

I already said this is the wrong place to discuss this. I suggest Martinique Island.

Merry Christmas,

BobW

[Terry]

For a full explanation on the International Response to Dienbienpu-read pages 62-68 in A Time For War-The Us and Vietnam 1941-75 written byDr. Robert D. Schulzinger.

Also read Stanley Karnows book Vietnam-A Documented History

Read the memoriers of Admiral Radford,John Foster Dulles-Dwight D. Eisenhower-Winston Churchill.

Patrick-there must be numerous publications writen by French historians on the same subject. Please list some of them

[Rapace]

I'm only guessing-but a good part of it probably was discussions between Marshall Petain (Fr) and Admiral Radford (US) Terry : sorry, but a big anachronism here... After the liberation in 1945, Marshall Philippe Pétain was trialed and sentenced to death for collaborating with the nazi occupiers, since he was the head of the so-called "Vichy" regime. Due to his age and heroic past in WW1 (in particular his role during the battle of Verdun), the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment by Gen De Gaulle. He was detained on an island off the French Atlantic coast (île d'Yeu) and died in 1951... 3 years before Diên Biên Phu.
It's true that discussions took place between the French and US goverments to organize a massive aerial bombardment around the besieged camp, to cut the Vietminh resupply lines and try to destroy their artillery. This operation was code-named "Vautour" (Vulture) and was supposed to involve a big fleet of B29 bombers coming from Okinawa island. Due to both political and technical reasons (the French didn't have at DBP the guiding equipment/radio beacons the USAF needed for an accurate bombing), this mission was called off.
There has been rumors that use of a 'small' tactical nuclear weapon was also considered, but according most of the historians I've read, this option was never discussed seriously, contrary to the 'classical' bombing mentioned above.

[Eagle eye]

Terry : sorry, but a big anachronism here... After the liberation in 1945, Marshall Philippe Pétain was trialed and sentenced to death for collaborating with the nazi occupiers, since he was the head of the so-called "Vichy" regime. Due to his age and heroic past in WW1 (in particular his role during the battle of Verdun), the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment by Gen De Gaulle. He was detained on an island off the French Atlantic coast (île d'Yeu) and died in 1951... 3 years before Diên Biên Phu.
It's true that discussions took place between the French and US goverments to organize a massive aerial bombardment around the besieged camp, to cut the Vietminh resupply lines and try to destroy their artillery. This operation was code-named "Vautour" (Vulture) and was supposed to involve a big fleet of B29 bombers coming from Okinawa island. Due to both political and technical reasons (the French didn't have at DBP the guiding equipment/radio beacons the USAF needed for an accurate bombing), this mission was called off.
There has been rumors that use of a 'small' tactical nuclear weapon was also considered, but according most of the historians I've read, this option was never discussed seriously, contrary to the 'classical' bombing mentioned above.This is an interesting post. It is interesting for the FFL psyche does not register this kind of detail about the US in DBP: instead the US seems 'to carry the Allied can' for another ally who was unwilling to go to war again so soon after WWII. Perhaps the French establishment had the political will to gamble against caution given the capitulation in WWII....Just a fleeting last thought...

Yet again, it's a case of "Damn if you do, and Damned if you don't" in the conduct of US foreign policy.

Read Karnow's book on DBP. p198. Eisenhower pleaded with Churchill to support US intervention AND to support the beseiged French. Churchill told the House of Commons he was unwilling to commit to any such undertakings. From this moment, DBP was doomed from the perspective of Allied support to the French.

[Terry]

It was Gen Ely, French Chief of Staff of the armed forcers that Admiral Radford had his discussions with concerning the possible relief of DBP. They discussed the use of 75 to 100 B-29 bombers. There were some discussions on the use of tactical nuclear weapons but how seriously this was discussed and by whom is very vague.

See book by Gen Phillip Davidson

The History 1946-75 VIETNAM AT WAR pgs 262-264

[BobW]

Bonjour all,

There are MANY books on the war in Indochina - with many opposing views.

Nuclear weapon use near the southern frontier of China? Berlin would have been cremated - and a probability of warfare in Europe.

Another easy question is why wasn't there US air support to Dien Bien Phu? Was it ever promised? If not promised, would any French General with WWII experience set up in a valley? If Dien Bien Phu had been won by the French, no change would have occurred in the political situation in Indochina. The French knew 105mm howitzers could be carried over mountains. They knew this from their WWII experiences.

What is missing?

Saluations,
BobW

[Rapace]

Another easy question is why wasn't there US air support to Dien Bien Phu? Was it ever promised?Actually, the US provided the French with some air support during the battle of Dien Bien Phu, in the form of C119 "Flying Boxcars" planes which flew several resupply missions over the camp. The planes were given by the USAF and piloted by 'civilian' pilots of the Civil Air Transport company, commanded by Gen Claire Chennault. One of the planes, piloted by James McGovern, was shot down by the Vietminh flak on May 6, 1954.

The French knew 105mm howitzers could be carried over mountains. They knew this from their WWII experiencesThe general feeling among the French high command was that :
a/ the Vietminh would never be able to bring to DBP enough artillery, from the Chinese border, across wild mountains and jungle without any decent road.
b/ should they be able to do so, they wouldn't be able to get sufficient ammo supply.
c/ if assumptions a. and b. proved wrong the 155 mm cannons present at DBP would be able to annihilate the Vietminh artillery.
Unfortunately (for the French !), all hypothesis were wrong and the artillery CO at DBP (Col Piroth) committed suicide when he realised that he wouldn't be able to keep his promise.

[Terry]

The fore mentioned CAT pilot James "Earthquake" Mc Govern and his copilot Buford crashed their plane at DBP and in 1959 their remains were moved and enshrined in a buddist temple in Laos. (pg 55-VIETNAM MILITARY LORE-LEGENDS< SHADOWS< and HEROES by M/Sgt Ray Bows

[BobW]

Bonjour Patrick,

I'm accepting that the "official" position of the French High Command was that artillery couldn't be positioned by the Viet Minh because of the impossible haul from China.

Still, I am just absolutely positive there was an "unofficial" position that perhaps could not be voiced.

It was common knowledge that during WWII howitzers and other equipment of a similiar size, were moved through jungle and mountain trails; even if so rugged, mules would not go. A 105mm howitzer, turned sidewards, is not much wider than a human body. As far as a labor force to haul cannons and ammunition, I do not believe this was questioned.

Plus, I am sure (as a guess) there were additional prepositioned stocks of ammo waiting for the Viet Minh near Dien Bien Phu, as soon as the French decided on this location for a fortress.

What I am positive about is that the Volumn I still classified by the French government - and the counterpart studies by the US - yields the answers.


Saluations,
BobW

[Rapace]

Bob : I think there's a general consensus that the French, or at least, those who were in a position to make the decision (the first one being Gen Henri Navarre), definitely underestimated, for whatever reason, the Vietminh logistics capacity.
A book by Roger Delpey, published earlier this year in France for the 50th anniversary of the battle and titled « Diên Biên Phu : histoire d'une trahison » states that some French officers had warned beforehand of a possible desaster and perfectly described what would happen. Their report was sort of "hushed up" by the high command in Indochina. This may be the kind of information that would be found in Volume I...

[BobW]

Thanks, Patrick.

I'm going to keep that Roger Delpey book in mind.

Amities,
BobW