Hmong History Since Entering SEAsia

[YeejKoob13]

IMO, the Vietnam/Secret War was unavoidable for us as it was so encompassing. Whether we were intelligent enough and wanted to remain hands off, we would have been dragged into the war to a degree one way or another.

1) I remember reading a book about "Pop" Buell, an Indiana farmer who went to help Laos with farming, saying that he witnessed a Vietnamese soldier demanding a Hmong village chief to side with the Communists/nationalists and when he refused the Viet soldier shot him dead infront of the villagers. I don't know how accurate this may be, perhaps it's American propoganda, but I don't doubt the Viets had a strained relationship with us and would have no qualms killing our ppl if that's what's required to achieve their objectives.

2) The Vietnam/War stemmed from the French-Viet conflict in which the Viets were fighting for independence. And during this time frame the Lao Issara (which later formed the Pathet Lao, nationalists-communists) with the support of Viets were actively trying to over throw the Lao Monarchy. And it was during this time that a small Hmong army (Led by a Hmong Ly, of which a young Vang Poa was under his command) went and drove off the Lao Issara and rescued the King. The King gave the Hmong concessions for their loyalty and bravery.

Afterwards the Lao leader of the Lao Issara sent a note to the Hmong Ly (and it's not Touby Lyfoung, but Touby often got credit for it though) saying that he would come with his troops to kill every Hmong men and rape every Hmong women in the province of Xiengkouang. The Hmong Ly sent a note back urging him to try it. And so up country the Lao Issara went with about 200 men, including 1 Hmong accomplice. The Hmong Ly only had a few of his close relatives to stand beside him, about a dozen ppl in total. The Hmong had the lesser numbers so had to be more cunning thus waited until the Lao Issara stopped to rest by a river bank at which point they opened fire from higher grounds and killed quite a few. Most of the enemies scurried off. The Hmong were able to capture some including the Lao Issara leader. They took him back and tied him to a pole. They only wanted to scare him and would let him go, etc, but he was so frightened he died of a heart attack.

Anyways, so the dye was cast already before the Vietnam/Secret War. The Hmong leadership would side with the Lao King and Royal Gov't.

3) Faydang's (Faiv Ntaj) group was helping out the Pathet Lao. They wanted the Hmong leadership, again. Conflict was sure to occur.

Thus, IMO, it was inevitable that we Hmong would get caught up and join in the war whether we wanted to fight or not in this conflict.

[HUNG TU LO]

Photo #85.  H.M. King Savang Vatthana and high-ranking officials paying visit to Long Cheng in 1965

Over 200,000 Hmong have emigrated out of Laos and there are currently over 400,000 Hmong living in Laos today. How many people do you see in that picture? A few dozen.

...the majority of Hmong were not considered to be citizens of Laos. General Vang Pao, Lyfuong family, and other rich and powerful Hmong were considered to be citizens but if you think the King and the rest of Laos thought of the typical mountain Hmong person to be a citizen like they are, you are out of touch with reality.

If you think that you're grandparents and great-grandparents would've been those among the social elite, rich and powerful Hmong in that picture that the Laos King would take the time to visit, you're nuts.

Like I said, you dabble in that sensationalize d propaganda bullshit which makes Hmong out to be some warrior caste and that we were somehow special and wanted by Laos.

There are over 1,000,000 Hmong in Vietnam today and during the war. They didn't involve themselves in the Vietnam civil strife and when the war was over, did the Viet Cong hunt them down to exterminate? No. Few Hmong-Vietnam did, but not like us dumbass Hmong in Laos. They understood that the war was between Vietnamese and other Vietnamese; you don't get into a family feud when you're not part of the family.

You young Hmong people are so confused. You think you're a somebody but you're legacy is nothing more than a 4am-9pm farmer/gardener boy. You're just an ethnic group that illegally entered Laos, had no citizenship, and because you were used as pawns in a Game of Thrones, you think you deserve something. You didn't earn SQUAT, boy.

[SVanTha]

Over 200,000 Hmong have emigrated out of Laos and there are currently over 400,000 Hmong living in Laos today. How many people do you see in that picture? A few dozen.

If you think that you're grandparents and great-grandparents would've been those among the social elite, rich and powerful Hmong in that picture that the Laos King would take the time to visit, you're nuts.

Its called symbolism, comrade.  So in your world, a royal or state figure would have to visit each city, each town, each village and each hamlet to establish credible political relations???  In the real world, they make symbolic visits.  I guarantee you, Obama or any world leader, has never been to every single city and town and village and hamlet in their country.

Like I said, you dabble in that sensationalize d propaganda bullshit which makes Hmong out to be some warrior caste and that we were somehow special and wanted by Laos.

There are over 1,000,000 Hmong in Vietnam today and during the war. They didn't involve themselves in the Vietnam civil strife and when the war was over, did the Viet Cong hunt them down to exterminate? No. Few Hmong-Vietnam did, but not like us dumbass Hmong in Laos. They understood that the war was between Vietnamese and other Vietnamese; you don't get into a family feud when you're not part of the family.

You young Hmong people are so confused. You think you're a somebody but you're legacy is nothing more than a 4am-9pm farmer/gardener boy. You're just an ethnic group that illegally entered Laos, had no citizenship, and because you were used as pawns in a Game of Thrones, you think you deserve something. You didn't earn SQUAT, boy.

1.  The only one making sensational claims and spreading propaganda is you.  Your position has not been supported by historical or factual evidence.  That's the definition of sensationalism and propaganda and just outright ignorance and lies.

2.  The hmong vietnamese operated under a different political, social and geographical status.  Their inclusion in this conversation to try and make your untenable point is ridiculous.  It's worse than grasping at straws.

3.  Once again, your allegations and your conclusions completely ignore the historical evidence and completely ignores the political and social status of hmong in laos.

I'll try to make it really simple for you to follow, comrade, since you have such a hard time understanding this simple event and its ramifications.

Vietnam...inva ded...Laos.  Again.
Vietnam...inva ded...Laos.  Again.
Vietnam...inva ded...Laos.

Neither the king nor the people, including hmong people, wanted to be involved in the war.  Why did they become involved?  Because...

Vietnam...inva ded...Laos.  Again.
Vietnam...inva ded...Laos.  Again.
Vietnam...inva ded...Laos.

When your country is invaded, you have a right, even a duty, to defend it.  Hmong people exercised their right and they proudly and admirably fulfilled their duty.

The only dumbass is you who continues to ignore history.  Who continues to make allegations and conclusions based off communist propaganda.  Who is trying so hard, so desperately and so unsuccessfully to portray your communist dog-eating regime in hanoi as some noble white knight.

Your communist regime committed an international crime when it invaded laos, in direct violation of the 1962 Geneva convention to keep laos neutral.  Comrade, explain your crimes.

Your communist regime committed war crimes when they targeted civilians for political reprisal; when they themselves invaded the sovereignty of the victims' country, when they themselves initiated the political upheaval of the victims' home.  Comrade, explain your crimes.

[HUNG TU LO]

Your communist regime committed an international crime when it invaded laos, in direct violation of the 1962 Geneva convention to keep laos neutral.  Comrade, explain your crimes.

Exactly. You don't know shit. North Vietnam invaded Laos in the early 1950s as soon as the First Indochina War ended and helped establish Pathet Lao into power. As soon as Pathet Lao got a foothold, North Vietnam backed off and helped their allies from within their own country of (North) Vietnam but did keep small forces within Laos. You're making Vietnam out to be this colonizing imperialist nation that came to lay destruction on Hmong farms or something. This is what I mean sensationalize d propaganda.

Vietnam didn't invade Laos after 1962. Pathet Lao already gained control of that area so it was a simply a strategic move to use their ally's territory to back door. Sure, it broke some guidelines, but it's war. Oh, you mean like how USA broke the Geneva guidelines too? The whole "Secret War" is a violation of the Geneva Agreement of 1962. You are so bias that you only point the finger at North Vietnam.

What else you got buddy? You're just a robot like every other confused Hmong person out there. I've heard the things you've stated a hundred times over. Same shit, different day.

Riding on the Laos king's cock doesn't make you one of his citizens. Just like a prostitute sucking your cock doesn't make her your girlfriend.

Unlike you, I see shit for what it is because I am for the people whereas you are clearly behind Vang Pao, Lyfuong family, riding on French imperialist cock, and kowtowing to Laos king puppet controlled by a Euro power. Your partiality makes your ideas a liability. The Royal Army says they are righteous and the Pathet Lao says they are righteous. I'm the guy that says screw them both and you're the loser that thinks you're somehow relevant because you've chosen a side.

We were nothing but pawn pieces, we got used, and we got creamed. Deal with it. Stop trying to make us out to be heroes that lost a valiant battle and trying to demonize North Vietnam and Pathet Lao to make yourself look good. If it weren't for Ho Chi Minh, Southeast Asia would still be rodeo on French cock. No USA or European history books teaches that. They love Asian people on white cocks.

[SVanTha]

Exactly. You don't know shit. North Vietnam invaded Laos in the early 1950s as soon as the First Indochina War ended and helped establish Pathet Lao into power. As soon as Pathet Lao got a foothold, North Vietnam backed off and helped their allies from within their own country of (North) Vietnam but did keep small forces within Laos. You're making Vietnam out to be this colonizing imperialist nation that came to lay destruction on Hmong farms or something. This is what I mean sensationalize d propaganda.

Vietnam didn't invade Laos after 1962. Pathet Lao already gained control of that area so it was a simply a strategic move to use their ally's territory to back door. Sure, it broke some guidelines, but it's war. Oh, you mean like how USA broke the Geneva guidelines too? The whole "Secret War" is a violation of the Geneva Agreement of 1962. You are so bias that you only point the finger at North Vietnam.

What else you got buddy? You're just a robot like every other confused Hmong person out there. I've heard the things you've stated a hundred times over. Same shit, different day.

Riding on the Laos king's cock doesn't make you one of his citizens. Just like a prostitute sucking your cock doesn't make her your girlfriend.

Unlike you, I see shit for what it is because I am for the people whereas you are clearly behind Vang Pao, Lyfuong family, riding on French imperialist cock, and kowtowing to Laos king puppet controlled by a Euro power. Your partiality makes your ideas a liability. The Royal Army says they are righteous and the Pathet Lao says they are righteous. I'm the guy that says screw them both and you're the loser that thinks you're somehow relevant because you've chosen a side.

We were nothing but pawn pieces, we got used, and we got creamed. Deal with it. Stop trying to make us out to be heroes that lost a valiant battle and trying to demonize North Vietnam and Pathet Lao to make yourself look good. If it weren't for Ho Chi Minh, Southeast Asia would still be rodeo on French cock. No USA or European history books teaches that. They love Asian people on white cocks.

All the political actions prior to the Geneva convention of 1962 was residual from the french and vietnamese war, NOT the american and vietnamese war.  Since france's indochinese territories and strongholds encompassed both vietnamese and lao soil, Of course, vietminh would be operating within the indochinese sphere.  I know your communist propaganda-filled mind will have a very hard time understanding and digesting that.  Take deep breathes while you're at it.

American involvement in laos came as a direct response to vietnam's breaking of the 1962 geneva convention that recognized the full independence of laos under H.M. King Savang Vatthana's Royal Lao Government.  Go on, take your time...read slowly.  I don't want that communist propaganda-filled mind of your's to overload.

Everything you've said have been absolutely laughable.  Each time you post, your hole gets deepeer and deeper and deeper.  I don't know if I should laugh at you or hug you.  You're obviously very angry and very confused.

/hug

[HUNG TU LO]

American involvement in laos came as a direct response to vietnam's breaking of the 1962 geneva convention that recognized the full independence of laos under H.M. King Savang Vatthana's Royal Lao Government.

There was no actual "convention" in 1962. It's officially known as Geneva Agreement of 1962. All of the nations that signed the agreement simply acknowledged that Laos was to be defined as neutral during the Indochina conflict. But how can Laos be neutral when France and later on, the USA, was giving resources and support to it? If you accept help, you're not neutral; you've become partial.

Laos Independence day is July 19, 1949 (look it up and ask Laotian people  ), commemorating its seperation from French control. Technically, Laos didn't want to gain indepedence as they loved riding the European cock. As so do Hmong people like yourself.

You don't even have your timeline confirmed. Everything you say is bogus. You're not qualified to speak on the subject. Funny you should mention historical facts and yet, here you are jumbling semantics and lingo and you don't even have your dates right.

American involvement in laos came as a direct response to vietnam's breaking of the 1962 geneva convention that recognized the full independence of laos under H.M. King Savang Vatthana's Royal Lao Government.  Go on, take your time...read slowly.  I don't want that communist propaganda-filled mind of your's to overload.

Like I stated, the Geneva Agreement of 1962 had nothing to do with independence as it was all about "Ok gang, how should we view Laos as during this time of conflict in Southeast Asia?" If the Geneva Convention is granting independence, LOL this is hilarious!

USA already spilled their piss in Southeast Asia way long before 1962. After Vietnam was divided by the 17th parallel (1954), USA supported France's vision of re-colonizing Vietnam.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html

"The United States had funded approximately one third of France’s attempt to retain control of Indochina..."

USA was already doing campaigns and playing the political game in Southeast Asia before the first farmer boy Hmong even saw the first issue of American guns.

[HUNG TU LO]

Fact: Vietnam didn't enter Laos as an imperial power. They simply left after the North Vietnamese forces were victorious. Any claims of Vietnamese imperialism and terrorism intentions on Hmong, whether during and/or after the war, is bogus and based on propaganda.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/latoc.html

Under section Foreign Policy<Bilateral Relations<Relations with Vietnam

During the 1980s, Vietnam's regional opponents attributed to it a neocolonial ambition to create an "Indochina Federation." This phrase can be found in early pronouncements of the ICP in its struggle against the French colonial structures in Indochina. The charge, exaggerated as it was, lost its currency once Vietnam withdrew its troops from Cambodia in 1989 and subsequently from Laos. Laos's dependence on Vietnam since 1975 could then be perceived as a natural extension of their collaboration and solidarity in revolution rather than as domination by Vietnam.

[SVanTha]

United Nations - Treaty Series

No. 6564.  DECLARATION ON THE NEUTRALITY OF LAOS.  SIGNED AT GENEVA, ON 23 JULY 1962

The Governments of the Union of Burma, the Kingdom of Cambodia, Canada, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, the Republic of France, the Republic of India, the Polish People's Republic, the Republic of Viet-nam, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, whose representative s took part in the International conference on the Settlement of the Laotian Question , 1961-1962;

Welcoming the presentation of the statement of neutrality by the Royal Government of Laos of July 9, 1962, and taking note of this statement, which is, with the concurrence of the Royal Government of Laos, incorporated in the present Declaration as an integral part thereof, and the text of which is as follows:

THE ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF LAOS,

Being resolved to follow the path of peace and neutrality in conformity with the interests and aspirations of the Laotian people, as well as the principles of the Joint Communique of Zurich dated June 22, 1961, and of the Geneva Agreements of 1954, in order to build a peaceful, neutral, independent, democratic, unified and prosperous Laos,

Solemnly declares that:

(1) It will resolutely apply the five principles of peaceful co-existence in foreign relations, and will develop friendly relations and establish diplomatic relations with all countries, the neighbouring countries first and foremost, on the basis of equality and of respect for the independence and sovereignty of Laos;

(2) It is the will of the Laotian people to protect and ensure respect for the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity, and territorial integrity of Laos;

........

1. Solemnly declare, in accordance with the will of the Government and people of the Kingdom of Laos, as expressed in the statement of neutrality by the Royal Government of Laos of July 9, 1962, that they recognise and will respect and observe in every way the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Laos.

[SVanTha]

There was no actual "convention" in 1962. It's officially known as Geneva Agreement of 1962.

"Convention", defined by merriam-webster dictionary as:

a. an agreement between states for regulation of matters affecting all of them.
b. the summoning or convening of an assembly.
c. an assembly of persons met for a common purpose.

Did representative s of all the parties involved 'convene' in Geneva?  Did they form an 'assembly'?  Did they come to an 'agreement'?  Your attack on semantics is weak and a ploy of desperation.  Its cute and laughable at the same time.

All of the nations that signed the agreement simply acknowledged that Laos was to be defined as neutral during the Indochina conflict.

The issues and acknowledgment s of the Geneva 'Agreement' of 1962 was regarding not only Laos neutrality, but laos sovereignty and all the rights of a sovereign state.  It's so clear only you dog-eating communists can shut your eyes to it.

But how can Laos be neutral when France and later on, the USA, was giving resources and support to it? If you accept help, you're not neutral; you've become partial.

1.  It accepted help for rebuilding its basic economic and domestic infrastructure .  That does not violate 'neutrality'.  That is not an act of bellegerence towards any other country, including your dog-eating country.

2.  Only after your dog-eating regime invaded and occupied its territories, in direct violation of the Geneva 'Agreement' of 1962, did it accept help to defend it's national sovereignty, which it has full rights to do.

At no time did laos act outside of the scope of 'neutrality' as defined by international law:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_%28international_relations%29

Rights and responsibiliti es of a neutral power

Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,[3] and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.[4]

A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,[5] but not escaped prisoners of war.[6] Belligerent armies may not recruit its citizens,[7] but they may go abroad to enlist.[8] Belligerent armies' personnel and material may not be transported across neutral territory,[9] but the wounded may be.[10] A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,[11] but not war material,[12] although it need not prevent export of such material.[13]

I know it will be hard for your communist propaganda-filled mind to see the violations of your dog-eating regime, so I've bolden them; but i'm sure you'll find a way to ignore the facts.

[SVanTha]

Laos Independence day is July 19, 1949 (look it up and ask Laotian people  ), commemorating its seperation from French control. Technically, Laos didn't want to gain indepedence as they loved riding the European cock. As so do Hmong people like yourself.

Who said anything about the Geneva 'Agreement' of 1962 was about gaining indepedence?  Only your weak comprehension skills came up with that false conclusion like all the other false conclusions you've been unable to defend.

Like I stated, the Geneva Agreement of 1962 had nothing to do with independence as it was all about "Ok gang, how should we view Laos as during this time of conflict in Southeast Asia?" If the Geneva Convention is granting independence, LOL this is hilarious!

It has everything to do with independence.  Not the act of gaining independence, but the rights of an independent state.  Only your communist propaganda-filled mind can not see that.  How many instances is the word independence used in just the abbreviated document of the 1962 Geneva 'Agreement'.  Hint:  many.

The only hilarious thing is your sad comprehension skills.  My quote: "...the 1962 geneva convention that recognized the full independence of laos under H.M. King Savang Vatthana's Royal Lao Government."

"Recognize", defined by merriam-webster dictionary as:

1 : to acknowledge formally: as
   a : to admit as being lord or sovereign
   b : to admit as being of a particular status
   c : to admit as being one entitled to be heard : give the floor to
   d : to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of

Once again, your comprehension skills are weak and your attack on semantics is a ploy of desperation.

USA already spilled their piss in Southeast Asia way long before 1962. After Vietnam was divided by the 17th parallel (1954), USA supported France's vision of re-colonizing Vietnam...

A completely different theatre, a completely diferent political situation, irrelevant to the political events in laos.  Once again, you're pulling at straws outside of the context of the issue to try and make a laughable justification for your dog-eating regime.

Regardless of what the american political actions were anywhere, including your dog-eating country, their political actions changed in laos in accordance with the Geneva 'Agreement' of 1962.  They only modified their policies in reaction to your dog-eating regime's crimes and even then, they stayed within the sphere of the Geneva 'Agreement' of 1962.  Unlike your dog-eating regime that you have pathetically and laughably tried to justify.

How deep will you keep digging your hole?

[SVanTha]

Fact: Vietnam didn't enter Laos as an imperial power. They simply left after the North Vietnamese forces were victorious. Any claims of Vietnamese imperialism and terrorism intentions on Hmong, whether during and/or after the war, is bogus and based on propaganda.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/latoc.html

Under section Foreign Policy<Bilateral Relations<Relations with Vietnam

Fact:  all countries attending, participating, drawing and signing the Geneva 'Agreement' of 1962 signified that they "recognise and will respect and observe in every way the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Laos." - United Nations - Treaty Series No. 6564.  DECLARATION ON THE NEUTRALITY OF LAOS.  SIGNED AT GENEVA, ON 23 JULY 1962.

Fact:  Belligerents may not invade neutral territory. - international standard on 'neutrality'.

Fact:  Belligerent armies' personnel and material may not be transported across neutral territory. - international standard on 'neutrality'.

Your justification is pathetic.  Your propaganda is pathetic.  You hole is getting deeper.

[HUNG TU LO]

Like I said, you're bias and your partial to the French and USA-backed political party. If you call someone a hero, I can call him a terrorist. If you call another man a terrorist, I can just as well call him a freedom fighter. Anyone reading this thread can see through to your soul and what you really stand for: rodeo on the cocks of Laos and France.


You stated that USA entered the war directly based solely on Vietnam's breaking of the guidelines.

American involvement in laos came as a direct response to vietnam's breaking of the 1962 geneva convention...

No, it wasn't. USA was already involved pre-1962. Like I stated earlier, USA supported the French re-colonization of Indochina as soon as the 1954 split of Vietnam at the 17th parallel. I know you're going to come up with some sensational bullshit excuse for this now too.

This all goes back to the fact that the "Secret War" was directly used to fight the Vietnamese forces, NOT to defend the land Hmong were living in. We numbered over 400,000 and yet, only 10,000-30,000 actually fought. Ok, so if we truly were fighting Vietnamese on our own homefront, Hmong soldiers would've been up in arms over 200,000 strong of teenage boys and men. Wonder what exaggerated excuse you'll have for this. "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but!"


I already acknowledged that Vietnam broke guidelines and I'll help you quote myself:

Vietnam didn't invade Laos after 1962. Pathet Lao already gained control of that area so it was a simply a strategic move to use their ally's territory to back door. Sure, it broke some guidelines, but it's war.

And so what? I'm not pro-Vietnam or pro-Laos. Stop explaining it to me as if I'm trying to justify or sugar coat Vietnam's continued installment of forces in Laos throughout the Indochina War. I said it myself: they broke the shit. I would've too to win the war. Would you? Oh, you would play fair? STFU. You think USA is playing it fair by the book in the Middle East? You're so out of touch with reality.

So what are you going to do now? I'm impartial to this whole shit and I see it for what it is. You keep throwing insults at me as if I give two shits about any of the parties involved in the Indochina conflict. Re-read everything that I've written and tell me that I'm in support of either side.

Come on, robot. What's next? Because I already know what's next. Every confused Hmong person has talked about all the same stuff you have.

The fact that you immediately called me "communist" and referred to me as "comrade" proves that you are just going off on sensationalize d propaganda. If someone disagrees with you or has an alternative view, oh, they are with the bad guys. Who's bad, really? Because the Americans call it the "Vietnam War" and Asians call it "American War". You're a bigot, you're partial, you're bias. You're so easy to figure out. Why won't you call me names anymore? Now you are all trying to act civil? Because you know you realize that I'm an actual educated and knowledgeable challenger to your garbage propaganda and now, you're trying to redeem yourself on this forum. Don't you go erasing that post where you called me names now.

[SVanTha]

It's obvious you are a dog-eating communist vietminh sympathizer and apologist.  If anything is obvious in this thread, it's that.

The ridiculous positions you supported that i broke down one by one with facts and data.

The hmong had no right, no duty and no business taking up arms against the vietnamese.

I proved they had a right and a duty as laotian citizens to protect the sovereignty of their country when a hostile, belligerent force invades and occupies it with the expressed goal of over-throwing the government they served.

Your next position:  the hmong are not citizens of laos.

I proved by historical cooperation and by visual documentation that the hmong have had an active part in serving the legal government of laos and that said government have treated them as citizens.

Your next position:  the dog-eating regime of hanoi was justified to be in laos.

I proved by internationall y binding documentation that your dog-eating regime's invasion and occupation of a sovereign, independent and neutral state was a crime.

Not one of your major positions have you defended successfully.  Not one of your many minor and laughable accusations have you defended successfully.

[YeejKoob13]

I think we all have a general idea of what happened since we entered SEAsia, but getting information about exact dates and events have been kinda hit or miss.  I found a site that has the best chronological, detailed and personal data on this historical period.  Posting it here for others that may be interested:  http://www.unforgettable-laos.com/historical-of-events/part-1/

One of the fascinating things i read was:

"This news spread to the Hmong in China, who threatened to send Chinese Hmong to help the Lao Hmong in Laos. Later on, Father Savina (a French preacher) came to intervene to stop the French from persecuting the Hmong."

Apparently, we maintained a much better network with our people in china then than we do now.  What a shame we let that network erode so much.

The Hmong network erosion has more to do with the wars (since the 1940's til recently) and the Communist parties of China, Laos, and Vietnam having stronger control of population movement than us Hmong just simply losing interest in our brethens, and vice versa.

[YeejKoob13]

So then what should the Hmong of Laos do instead if not fight along the side of the Royal Lao Gov't/Americans? Join the Viets? Run to the hills and wait it out until the war was over? Was the latter even possible considering the circumstances?