The big differences between the Fall of Saigon and the Fall of Kabul.

The big differences between the Fall of Saigon and the Fall of Kabul.

by tonytran2015 (Melbourne, Australia).

Click here for a full, up to date ORIGINAL ARTICLE and to help fighting the stealing of readers’ traffic.


#fabricated history, #history,
There are big differences between the Fall of Saigon and the Fall of Kabul.
1/- During the Vietnam War although there was a non-committed faction of the Vietnamese population in South Vietnam there was also a fiercely anti-communist faction. This fiercely anti-communist faction comes mostly from the 500,000 people who had moved to the South during the temporary partition of the country by the Geneva Accords of 1954.
2/- Former Israel Agricultural Minister Moshe Dayan went to South Vietnam to inspect(?) American war progress in 1966.There is a question mark on the real purpose of that trip.

Toward the end of his stay in Vietnam, Dayan was convinced that the war – which would certainly last much longer – was lost.

He figured that the American army had the power to destroy the Vietcong, but that it could never eradicate support and admiration for North
Vietnam’s struggle for independence

3/- After the Arab-Israel War in 1967 (with the attack by Israel on USS Liberty), it was more advantageous for Israel to get the US out of Vietnam so that all US military assistance could be funneled to Israel. There were then concerted efforts by US Main Stream Media to discredit any military success in South Vietnam and the anti-Vietnam War movements were also stirred up in USA.
4/- There was a concerted effort by US Main Stream Media to mis-report and make fake news on every battle in South Vietnam.
5/- The Paris Peace Accord 1973 signed by Henry Kissinger was to cut and run from the Vietnam War (that suited the above objectives very well) and to help Nixon to bring back American Prisoners of War.

Kissinger wanted to move quickly so that US troops could be withdrawn and American prisoners of
war released. And perhaps the US Administration also intended to get out in a hurry, to ‘cut and run’.
They could get out. We had to stay in South Vietnam.

You have complained that South Vietnam’s collapse in 1975 was attributable mainly to the fact that North
Vietnamese troops were allowed to remain in the South even after the Paris Peace Agreement had been
signed. You claim that you tolerated their presence only while the agreement was being negotiated and that they ought to have withdrawn once the negotiations were concluded.
But Kissinger claims …
It is a most unmannerly lie on Kissinger’s part to say that I agreed to North Vietnamese troops remaining in the South. If I had agreed from the beginning, as Kissinger claims, I would not have objected so strongly when he showed me the draft agreement, which included nothing about the withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops.
That was the most important point that I was fighting for, throughout the peace negotiations. Right to the very end, I asked Kissinger to demand that Hanoi withdraw its troops and made it clear to him that there would be no agreement unless it did so. After days of heated discussion, Kissinger finally confessed to me: ‘Mr President, it cannot be done. If it could be done, I would have done it. The question was raised three years ago, but Russia would not have it.’
I then realised that the American Administration had yielded to Russian demands, and that was my greatest disappointment.

6/- Henry Kissinger reduced the budget for South Vietnam drastically. In the last address to South Vietnam (1975), former President Nguyen Van Thieu said that Henry Kissinger talked to him like a fish seller in a fish market.

“The Americans have asked us to do an impossible thing…
You have asked us to do something you failed to do, with half a million
powerful troops and skilled commanders, and with nearly $300 billion in
expenditure over six long years.

If I do not say that you were defeated by the communists in Vietnam, I
must modestly say that you did not win either. But you found an
honourable way out. And at present, when our army lacks weapons,
ammunition, helicopters, aircraft and B-52s (bombers), you ask us to do an impossible thing, like filling up the ocean with stones…

Likewise, you have let our soldiers die under the hail of shells. This is an inhumane act by an inhumane ally. Refusing to aid an ally and
abandoning it is an inhumane act…

The United States is proud of being an invincible defender of the
just cause and the ideal of freedom in the world… Are US statements
worthy? Are US commitments still valid?

Some $300 million is not a big sum to you. Compared to the amount of money you spent here in ten years, this sum is sufficient for only ten
days of fighting. And with this sum, you ask me to score a victory or to
check communist aggression, a task which you failed to fulfil in six
years, with all US forces, and with such an amount of money. This is

7/- Henry Kissinger and US President Nixon visited China in 1974. Two weeks after that China attacked and occupied the Paracel Islands of South Vietnam. US refused to help South Vietnam bringing the attack to the UN Security Council. It is quite reasonable to SUSPECT that STRATEGICALLY the US preferred to see the future of the Paracel Islands to be in the hands of a supposedly US-friendly China to in the hand of North Vietnam who was more aligned with the Soviet Union. (This solves the riddle of the South China Sea).
8/– South Vietnamese units mostly fought valiantly with reduced ammunition against a North Vietnamese Force which was fully supported by the Soviet Union and China.
9/- South Vietnam Armed Force was starved of ammunition even before February 1975. There were heavy rationing of small ammunition and of artillery shells. The last ship carrying ammunition leaving USA to supply South Vietnam in February 1975 was order by a US Congress Woman to change its destination to bring the weapons to Israel instead.

Even the promised to South Vietnamese of 1 by 1 replacement of ammunition spent had not materialised.

In a scathing attack on the US, he suggested US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger had tricked him into
signing the Paris peace agreement two years ago, promising military aid
which then failed to materialise.

“At the time of the peace agreement the
United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis,” he
said. “But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American’s
word reliable these days?”

10/- South Vietnamese President Thieu was pressured to resign by the US in order to keep US support for South Vietnam.
11/- There was no incident of whole sale desertion or surrender or abandoning heavy weapons by units of South Vietnamese Armed Force. To the fall of Saigon, there were only one or two fighter pilots (one is Mr Nguyen Thanh Trung, lately a Director of Vietnam Airline for some period) changing side to join North Vietnam.
12/- USA could have taken action against violation of Paris Peace Accord of 1973 but decided not to.

Nixon promised to come to the aid of South Vietnam if the communists
violated the terms of the peace treaty, and Thieu agreed to sign.
Unfortunately for Thieu and the South Vietnamese, Nixon was forced from
office by the Watergate scandal in August 1974, and no U.S. aid came
when the North Vietnamese launched a general offensive in March 1975.

13/- There were no DECENT INTERVAL (for Kissinger) in the Fall of Saigon but there appear to be a VERY GENEROUS DECENT INTERVAL ready to be granted in Kabul. The US only needs to ask for it (Vietnam War – A Decent Interval / Who Lost Vietnam??).


It will take time to discover the real events in Kabul but the real events in Vietnam were different from what had been described by US Main Stream Media in that period of 1975. We should be careful in drawing parallel between the two events.
The differences between the real events and their description by American Media explain the distrust of and the bitterness against US government and US media by former members of Vietnamese Armed Force.

There are two quotes that should be remembered from the Fall of Saigon:

But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American’s word reliable these days?

Nguyen Van Thieu


The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men.

Nguyen Van Thieu