John Cady writes that a major concern is the Communist Chinese victory in 1949 that may allow them to aid indigenous "rebel elements" in Southeast Asia. Although Ho Chi Minh is an "arch opponent of French imperialism" he is "a Moscow-trained Communist." However, the Vietnamese may be doubtful of accepting Chinese aid since the occupation of the north by Nationalist China under Chiang Kai-shek left bitterness among the Vietnamese.
Cady also writes that the Chinese Communists must be "reassured that no West-sponsored vendettists are plotting its downfall, a powerful appeal could then be made for China's cooperation in developing mutually advantageous commercial relations with neighboring countries of eastern Asia . . ." Westerners do not understand the conflicts of southeast Asia. The US must work for peace. And we know how that turned out.
John F. Cady: "Nevertheless, Cady describes the conflict as between "French and nationalist forces . . . And . . . Pacification increasingly difficult. Abject and unconditional withdrawal on the part of the French in the face of the combined Viet Min-Communist pressure is not considered politically feasible from the Western point of view; it would mean serious loss of prestige and would be denounced by important political groups within France and the United States as tantamount to admitting Communist influence into the very center of the southeast Asian peninsula."
Candy offers "suggestions for American policy" which are quiet interesting for 1950 even if they are pre-Korean War. He insists on a "negotiated settlement . . . between the Vietnam nationalists and the French in Indochina." There are real social and economic issues that Indochina needs resolved. They are not the creation of the Communists. The anti-war movement of the 1960s constantly said this. Revolution, according to Cady, is not communism or being a tool of the Soviet Union. Not understanding g this "plays into Moscow's hands."