ustxtxb_obs_1967_08_04_50_00011-00000_000.pdf

Did you EVER hear of an insurance company . . . which allows its CLAIMS to be ARBITRATED! We do! Specifically, Part Five of our Special Union Labor Disability policy states that . . “In the event of a disagreement between the Insured and the Company on any question arising under the policy, the matter under dispute may, on the request of the Insured in writing to the Executive Offices of the Company be referred to a Board of Arbitration, said Board to consist of three persons, one to be selected by the Insured, one by the Company, and a third selected by these two. The award or decisions of the arbitrators, or a majority of them, if not unaminous, shall be binding upon both the Company and the Insured.” This provision is in the policy that pays you $200 per month when you are disabled and unable to work due to sickness or accident. Something else. Ours is one of the few ‘Unionized insurance companies in the United States. Our employees are represented by Local 277 of the Office and Professional Employees International Union. And we’re proud of it! A ‘1 MERICAN INCOME LIFE //Mterame BERNARD RAPOPORT President Wf Executive Offices, P. 0. Box 208, Waco, Texas of the factual matters dealt with below they exhibit a definite convergence of opinion. These authors include Ellen Hammer, Harold Isaacs, the late Bernard Fall, Roy Jumper, Majorie Weiner Normand, Donald Lancaster, Robert Scigliano, Phillipe Devillers, Oliver E. Clubb, Jr., George Kahin, and John W. Lewis. Important selections by many of them are conveniently reprinted in the paperback volume Viet Nam edited by Marvin Gettleman, while the last two have just published an indispensable book, The U.S. in Vietnam. Most of these authors know Vietnam from first-hand experience and some of them were eve-witnesses to the events they describe. ANATURAL starting-point for any discussion of the recent history of Vietnam is the famine year of 1930 when two revolts against the French occurred in what was then Indochina. On Feb. 9, 1930, the VNQDD \(or Vietnamese Nationkinese rifle batallion at Yen Bay on the Chinese border. This distinctly minor uprising was easily suppressed by the French colonial authorities, and subsequent retaliation against the VNQDD, including the execution of its leader Nguyen Thai Hoc, practically destroyed it as an effective organization for some 15 years. It emerged again under Chinese Kuomintang auspices during World War II. Later, beginning in May of 1930, several peasant rebellions were instigated by Indochinese Communists \(not, as Rabbi Olan says, the Vietminh, which was set up as a national were also suppressed by the French, and such prominent Communist leaders as Pham Van Dong and Vo Nguyen Giap were imprisoned. Enough of the Communist organization in Indochina was left intact, however, to form the basis of the principal anti-Japanese resistance movement in the country during World War II. This summary shows how far that the VNQDD was the only genuine anti-colonialist party in Vietnam in the 1930’s. Where was Ho Chi Minh at the time of the 1930 uprisings? Apparently in Hong Kong, directing the organization of the Indochinese Communist Party which he had helped to create at the very beginning of the year. That Ho did not choose to enter Indochina at this time is hardly surprising, since the French had sentenc MEETINGS THE THURSDAY CLUB of Dallas meets each the Downtown YMCA, 605 No. Ervay St., Dallas. Good discussion. You’re welcome. Informal, no dues. The TRAVIS COUNTY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS meet at the Spanish Village, 802 Red River, at 8 p.m. on the first Thursday. You’re invited. ITEMS for this feature cost, for the first entry, 7c a word, and for each subsequent entry, 5c a word. Wa must receive them one week before the date of the issue in which they are to be published. ed him, in absentia, to death. And indeed, in 1931, Ho was imprisoned for six months by the British authorities in Hong Kong, narrowly escaping extradition to Indochina. As for Ho’s “comfortable” sojourn in Moscow during the 1930’s to which Lt. Quinn refers, this hardly squares with the established facts of Ho’s career. During the decade of the 1930’s Ho seems to have spent only four years in Moscow \(1934 onward he was back in China, where his stay was anything but comfortable, since dragged in stocks from one prison to another. There is little reason to believe in an exact correlation between the degree of personal discomfort suffered by a political leader and the degree of his patriotism, but since Lt. Quinn raises this question I would like to cite a parallel case: that of Ngo Dinh Diem \(I trust Diem is acceptable as an example of a Vietnaed with the emperor Bao Dai and the French colonialists in Indochina during the years 1929-’33; frustrated in his political efforts he then renounced all his official posts in the administration of the country and retired from public life. When the Japanese took over, Diem refused to work with them but apparently did not actively oppose them. The Japanese may even have helped Diem escape capture by the French in July, 1944. While a captive of Ho Chi Minh in 1945, Diem also refused to work with the Communists. He was shortly released in spite of this. Finally, in the crucial years 1951-’54, while the Vietminh battled to oust the French from Vietnam, Diem was in exile in the United States and Europe in relatively comfortable circumstances, I should judge. The important historical point in this contrast between Ho and Diem is that it was the Vietminh, not the nationalists, who were primarily responsible for ridding Vietnam of colonial rule. Thus, in 1945, after VJ Day, the Vietminh triumphantly entered both Hanoi and Saigon, only to have South Vietnam wrested from them by a combination of British, French, and unbelievable as it may seem Japanese troops. Then in 1954, after decisively defeating the French army, the Vietminh was once again deprived of the August 4, 1967 11