Partitioning Vietnam: Making the Division Permanent

A common myth surrounding the 1954 partition of Vietnam holds that three of the primary negotiators at the Geneva Conference, French Foreign Minister Pierre Mendes-France, Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav M. Molotov, and Pham Van Dong, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), decided rather nonchalantly, and at the last moment, to establish the demarcation line at the 17th Parallel.  Apparently, just hours before the approach of the July 21st deadline for an agreement, Mendes-France proposed a partition line at the 18th Parallel.  Pham Van Dong countered with the 16th Parallel.  Molotov, hoping to quickly wrap-up the negotiations, then flippantly proposed the 17th Parallel.  The French and Vietnamese immediately recognized the reasonableness of Molotov’s compromise proposal and agreed to the 17th Parallel.

Not only is the above interpretation of events at the Geneva Conference untrue, it ignores how serious the United States, France and the DRV viewed the issue of the demarcation line.  Locating the border between the Communist zone of occupation and the French zone became the key stumbling block to an agreement at Geneva.  French and Vietminh negotiators understood that the site of the dividing line had significant political, economic and military implications.

The United States, which secretly participated in the Geneva talks, initially rejected the idea of partitioning Vietnam.  Before the start of the formal conference proceedings in late April, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles wrote, “Division of Indochina impractical…Mixed…government would be beginning of disaster….” [Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Vol. 1, 460]  President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Dulles, and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, believed any partition of Vietnam would lead to the eventual Vietminh conquest of all of Indochina.  Adhering to the assumptions underlying the Domino Theory, which theorized that the loss of one area to Communism would lead to the loss of other areas, the Americans concluded that the Communists would use their newly acquired base area in Tonkin and possibly Annam (northern and central Vietnam respectively) to jump-off to southern Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and beyond.

The Americans also predicted that French territorial concessions to the Vietminh would undermine the U.S. policy of containment.  The U.S. had backed the French in their war against the Vietminh in order to prevent the spread of Soviet and Chinese influence into Indochina.  If the Vietminh acquired all of Tonkin and a portion of Annam at the negotiating table, the U.S. would have failed to keep the Communists restricted to China proper.  U.S. officials believed the weakening of the containment policy would then encourage further Communist aggression throughout Southeast Asia.  On March 12, 1954, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Arthur Radford wrote Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson, warning him of the consequences to the U.S.’s containment policy if the Communists became entrenched in northern Vietnam, “A partitioning involving Vietnam and Laos…as has been suggested…would cede to Communist control approximately half of Indochina, its people and its resources, for exploitation in the interests of further Communist aggression; specifically, it would extend the Communist dominated area to the borders of Thailand, thereby enhancing the opportunities for Communist infiltration and eventual subversion of that country.  Any cession of Indochinese territory to the Communists would constitute a retrogressive step in the Containment Policy….” [Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Vol. 1, 449]  For the Americans, partition held grave repercussions – it would imperil the entire U.S. global security system.

Yet, as the spring of 1954 moved into summer, and the French military situation in Vietnam deteriorated still further, Eisenhower and Dulles reconsidered their stance on partition.  Their change in attitude resulted from the realization that without a quick settlement to the Franco-Vietnamese War, the Vietminh might overrun the Red River Delta, forcing a humiliating retreat of the French from Tonkin.  By June, the Vietminh were also making gains in Annam and Cochinchina.  If the Vietminh could not be stopped through a cease-fire and subsequent partition of the country, they might seize most of Vietnam, leaving the French holding a handful of coastal enclaves.  Increasingly, the Americans saw negotiations and partition as a means of preserving a viable French presence in at least a portion of southern Vietnam.  Eisenhower and Dulles eventually agreed to partition with one major caveat – the demarcation line must provide the Allies with a solid defensive position.

The establishment of a strong defensive line served as the paramount Western goal in the talks over the division of Vietnam.  It was for this reason that the Eisenhower administration stipulated that any partition of Vietnam must not threaten the territorial integrity of the other nations of Southeast Asia.  This meant the line had to provide for an effective defense of not just southern Vietnam, but also Laos and Cambodia.  On May 12, 1954, Dulles confirmed the administration’s policy.  “The United States is not prepared to give its express or implied approval to any cease-fire, armistice, or other settlement which would have the effect of subverting the existing lawful governments of the three aforementioned states or of permanently impairing their territorial integrity or placing in jeopardy the forces of the French Union….”  [PP, Vol.1. 507]  If a partition line could be established at a defensible location, the U.S. might agree to it.

The question then plaguing the Americans, French, and Vietminh was where exactly should the demarcation line be established.  Not surprisingly, the French and the Americans wanted the demarcation line as far north in Vietnam as possible.  U.S. officials first proposed a partition line at the 20th Parallel, which would have provided the Vietminh with only a fraction of the land area they actually held within the country.[Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Vol. 1, 142, 143].  Understandably, the Vietminh wanted the dividing line as far south as possible.

The Vietminh first proposed a demarcation line that extended diagonally across Vietnam from Tuy Hoa on the 13th Parallel to Pleiku on the 14th Parallel.  From there the line extended to the Cambodia border [Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, 146].  This line through south-central Vietnam was not an unrealistic request.  The Communists controlled approximately 80% of Vietnam’s land area by 1954, including most of Tonkin, a long stretch of the coastal plain, segments of the Central Highlands, the Plain of Reeds, and a large chunk of the Mekong Delta.  This line reflected the Vietminh’s territorial reach.  It also ensured that the long-held Communist bastions in the provinces of Binh Dinh and Quang Ngai fell within the Communist zone.

The Americans and French immediately rejected the Vietminh proposal.  U.S. military analysts believed the Tuy Hoa-Pleiku demarcation line would make Cochinchina indefensible.  Communist access to the Central Highlands and national routes 1 and 14 would enable the Vietminh to rapidly mass forces north of the demarcation line to jump-off into Cochinchina.  To make matters worse, the Tuy Hoa-Pleiku line would have allowed the Vietminh to launch a conventional attack across a broad front, making it more difficult for U.S. airpower or naval gunfire to stop such an invasion.  Additionally, Communist forces stationed in the highlands would be close to the plains of Cambodia, which would enable them to not only quickly overrun Cambodia but threaten Thailand from the east and southern Vietnam from the west.  The National Security Council admitted as early as February 1952 that a Communist presence near the Cambodian lowlands would pose a security risk to Thailand.  It stated, “Thailand would be difficult to defend against an overt attack from the east by way of the traditional invasion route through Cambodia” [Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, 377].

The French then proposed a demarcation line at the 18th Parallel.  A dividing line here would have kept two-thirds of Vietnam in French hands; and most importantly, it would have made a conventional Vietminh invasion of Cambodia and southern Laos a difficult proposition, since Communist forces would have had to first pass through the imposing mountains of the Annamese Cordillera before reaching the lowlands of Laos and plains  of Cambodia.  But this French proposal went nowhere.  Neither the Russians or Vietnamese Communists took the proposal seriously because it bore no relation to the situation on the ground in mid-1954.  In seeking the 18th parallel line, the French were trying to acquire far more Vietnamese territory than their forces actually held.

Because the talks concerning the demarcation line took place in secret between the military delegations of the French and Vietminh, and between the French and Americans, and neither side kept verbatim records of the discussions, we do not know the exact course of the deliberations.  What we do know is that the Vietminh eventually offered to divide Vietnam at the 16th Parallel.  The French rejected that line because it meant the forfeiture of two of Vietnam’s largest cities, Hue and Tourane [later known as Danang].  Mendes-France also refused to accept the 16th Parallel because it entailed the loss of the major port of Tourane and the link to Laos provided by Route 9.  Another likely reason for the rejection of the 16th parallel related to Hai Vann Pass.  Had the French accepted the 16th parallel, Communist forces would have been south of the heights of Hai Vann Pass, thus complicating the future defense of the French zone.

To the annoyance of the French, even the Americans did not accept the 18th Parallel.  Instead, the Americans wanted the demarcation line running from Dong Hoi, (approximately 35 miles south of the 18th Parallel) westward through the Annamese Cordillera.  The reason for the choice of Dong Hoi is readily apparent from a topographical map of the surrounding area.  The coastal plain at Dong Hoi is narrower than at the 18th Parallel – it is only ten miles wide.  To the east of the coastal plain lie the azure waters of the South China Sea.  West of the plain are the dark green peaks of the Annamese Cordillera.  The coastal plain at Dong Hoi forms a convenient chokepoint, one that would have allowed U.S. air and naval forces to concentrate their firepower against an invading Communist army.  If Communist forces tried to avoid the choke point by turning west into Laos, the cordillera would have slowed Vietminh mechanized units to a crawl.  Bogged down on the precipitous slopes of the cordillera, American airstrikes would have decimated the exposed Vietminh columns.  At Dong Hoi, terrain favored the defense.  But the DRV delegation rejected the Dong Hoi line.

In the third week of July 1954, the French [with American backing] and the Vietminh   agreed on the 17th Parallel as the demarcation line.  The 17th parallel offered the Americans and French many military advantages.  The coastal plain there was only 20 miles wide, making it another chokepoint.  If the DRV planned a future invasion of South Vietnam, which U.S. officials believed would come in the form of a conventional cross-border attack, the narrow coastal plain at the 17th Parallel would concentrate Communist units in that chokepoint, ensuring their vulnerability to U.S. airpower and naval gunfire.

An added advantage of the 17th Parallel from the U.S. perspective was that the mountains immediately to the west of the coastal plain made it difficult for any land army to skirt to the west to avoid the chokepoint.  An army could go west, but Laos’s rugged terrain would disperse the Communist troop formations, since no major roads existed there.  Troop concentrations would break-up because they would be required to trod multiple footpaths to the south.  Geographical dispersal of the ground troops would diminish the offensive striking power of the invading army, making the invasion force less likely to succeed in overrunning Allied units.  Also, if the Communists did an end run around the demarcation line into Laos, the terrain and lack of hard-surfaced roads there would hinder the movement of armor, towed artillery, and mechanized vehicles, all the necessary tools of modern war.  Once reduced to foot traffic by the terrain, a cross-border invasion would be more easily defeated by the Allies.

The U.S. also insisted on the 17th Parallel because of the presence of the Ben Hai River.  The river cut a short path from the mountains across the coastal plain to the sea.  The river’s width and depth formed a natural barrier to an invading army.  River crossings not only slowed advancing armies, they also exposed armies to air attack and artillery bombardment.  And since the Americans expected to have air superiority in any war in Indochina, a Communist army attempting to cross the Ben Hai River would face withering American fire.

The 17th Parallel gave the Americans the strong defensive line they considered necessary in preventing the loss of the remainder of Indochina to Communism.  The Annamese Cordillera, the narrow coastal plain, and the Ben Hai River would help keep the Communists contained to northern Vietnam.  The 17th Parallel became the key to the U.S.’s containment policy not only in Vietnam but in Southeast Asia.  Eisenhower considered the demarcation line the equivalent of a cork in a bottle.  If the DRV represented the bottle, the 17th Parallel served as the cork, keeping the Communists from bursting forth and spreading over the rest of Southeast Asia [Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, 602, 603].

The French and American insistence on the 17th Parallel as the dividing line between the two zones indicates that the Eisenhower administration had every intention of making the division of Vietnam permanent.  Ike sought a defensible demarcation line in order to give the nascent government of “Free Vietnam” time to consolidate its hold over the people and territory of southern Vietnam and to eventually defend itself against a possible invasion from the north.  Thus, the Eisenhower administration, even before the ink on the Geneva Accords had dried, had decided not to abide by the accords’ stipulation that elections for reunification be held in July 1956.  Had the U.S. intended on keeping to the election schedule and to the near-term reunification of the country, it would have been unnecessary to seek a division line at the 17th Parallel.  The U.S. could have accepted a division at the 16th Parallel or along the Tuy Hoa-Pleiku line.

In a press conference on July 21, 1954, Eisenhower admitted that he viewed the demarcation line at the 17th Parallel as permanent.  He compared the division of Vietnam with the division of Korea and Germany.  In reference to the bifurcation of countries between the U.S. and Communist Bloc, Ike remarked, “As it is [the partition of Korea] it is an unsatisfactory situation, exactly as exists in Germany, and now apparently is going to exist in [a] part of Indochina.”  And in a reference to how the division of countries fostered international instability and tension between the U.S. and Communist Bloc, Ike stated, “These are very unsatisfactory situations and, to my mind, will always give reason for aggravating situations that are difficult at best….” [Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, 605].

But it was the “Free Vietnam” delegation at Geneva who predicted that the partition of the country would lead to further war.  In a written statement to Dulles, Emperor Bao Dai’s representatives noted that, “Although this partition is only provisional in theory, it would not (repeat not) fail to produce in Vietnam the same effects as in Germany, Austria, and Korea.  It would not (repeat not) bring the peace which is sought for, deeply wounding the national sentiment of the Vietnamese people it would provoke trouble throughout the country, trouble which would not (repeat not) fail to threaten a peace so dearly acquired” [Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, 569].

This entry was posted in Featured, The Environment, War & the Environment and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Footer Divider


Follow Us

Join Mailing List

Contact Us

If you wish to contact Eco InTheKnow, please email us or contact us on the number below.

1303 596 1854