651.51G/10–1853: Telegram
The Ambassador at Saigon (Heath) to the Department of State
683. Repeated information Paris 206, Hanoi 105. Reference: Embtel 672 (Paris 200, Hanoi 103) October 17. Statement contained reference telegram that it seemed probable Congress was cleverly sabotaged by pro-Viet Minh stooges in passage motion against adherence French Union may be misleading to Department. While reports name Vu Van Huyen (also known as Quynh), Viet Minh Rallie, as leader in movement to strike phrase “in its present form” from motion on association with France, it is somewhat rash to charge Viet Minh infiltration from this fact.
Naturally, it is possible that Viet Minh had agents in Congress, and it is certain that Communists would have infiltrated if at all feasible. Nevertheless, motion appears rather the product of emotional, irresponsible nationalism. How distinguish between nationalist fighting with Viet Minh, nationalists on this side who secretly or openly believe their battle is being fought by Viet Minh, and thoroughly anti-Communist nationalists who distrust and even hate the French? Except for responsible leaders, probably most Vietnamese in emotional thinking would like remove French “presence”. Only intellectual recognition of need of French protection against Communist threat makes Vietnamese willing to enter alliance granting economic and cultural privileges to France in return for military and economic assistance.
In sum, we should say anti-French Union motion resulted from temporary disregard of political and military realities emotional reaction to amendment of hard, ruthless debaters such as Huyen and Chuong, and almost complete unawareness of impact motion on French and even US willingness continue fight Vietnamese and free world’s war against Communist aggression.