Ho Chi Min Essay Example
To what extent does history present us with a balanced interpretation of this personality?
History presents us with a balanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh to some a major extent, however there are some inconsistencies with views of historians. While the majority agree to some extent that Ho was either communist or nationalist some are divided by this theory and provide us with two different perspectives of Ho Chi Minh. Historians such as Osborne present us with a positive view of Ho and describe him as a great leader. However other historians have a negative view on Ho and describe him as an ineffective leader.
Some historians believe that Ho Chi Minh was a communist. This was because of his involvement with the com-intern and also his relationship and involvement with the Chinese and Russia. Historians believe that Ho Chi Minh was communist strongly because he wanted to follow a Marxist Leninist idea of revolution. Evidence of this visible in Ho’s land reforms and the nationalising French owned companies, banks etc. As a result of these actions, a need for equality and forming of parties such as the ICP history gives us the communist ideology of Ho Chi Minh.
Other historians believe that Ho was a nationalist because He wanted unity for Vietnam and an end to French rule. He aimed to achieve this aims using the idea of a united Vietnam to give the Vietnamese a strong sense of patriotic nationalism to defend their country and end foreign rule and misuse of resources which only the Vietnamese should have for them. Ho also used the idea of nationalism to unite the Vietnamese from the start. During World War 1, Ho witnessed the courage and will of the Vietnamese soldiers fighting on the side of the French, as a result he began to start forming parties and training spies to penetrate the people of Vietnam and help them gain a sense of nationalism and stand against the French. Due to the use of such ideas, Ho is referred to as a nationalist by some historian.
History presents us with a balanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh to some a major extent, however there are some inconsistencies with views of historians. While the majority agree to some extent that Ho was either communist or nationalist some are divided by this theory and provide us with two different perspectives of Ho Chi Minh. Historians such as Osborne present us with a positive view of Ho and describe him as a great leader. However other historians have a negative view on Ho and describe him as an ineffective leader.
Some historians believe that Ho Chi Minh was a communist. This was because of his involvement with the com-intern and also his relationship and involvement with the Chinese and Russia. Historians believe that Ho Chi Minh was communist strongly because he wanted to follow a Marxist Leninist idea of revolution. Evidence of this visible in Ho’s land reforms and the nationalising French owned companies, banks etc. As a result of these actions, a need for equality and forming of parties such as the ICP history gives us the communist ideology of Ho Chi Minh.
Other historians believe that Ho was a nationalist because He wanted unity for Vietnam and an end to French rule. He aimed to achieve this aims using the idea of a united Vietnam to give the Vietnamese a strong sense of patriotic nationalism to defend their country and end foreign rule and misuse of resources which only the Vietnamese should have for them. Ho also used the idea of nationalism to unite the Vietnamese from the start. During World War 1, Ho witnessed the courage and will of the Vietnamese soldiers fighting on the side of the French, as a result he began to start forming parties and training spies to penetrate the people of Vietnam and help them gain a sense of nationalism and stand against the French. Due to the use of such ideas, Ho is referred to as a nationalist by some historian.