> the liberation of Saigon
That was a jarring phrase that helped underscore the great divide between East and West.
That was a jarring phrase that helped underscore the great divide between East and West.
There was no “rightful” liberation. It was a civil war in its essence with two opposing groups of Vietnamese fighting for control of a fractured post-colonial state, with plenty of foreign interference/assistance during the whole thing.
In the end the North did a better job (through both smart politics, good PR and internal support/oppression of opposition).
When the French lost and withdrew, America invaded and was subsequently beaten.
This is not a defence of China or Russia, look at how they are invading Tibet and the Ukraine, but the Vietnamese people weren’t invaded by China or the USSR, they were invaded by the US. South-Vietnam was an American fabrication during its invasion following the post French-Indonesian-war, because the Vietnamese people had a government in Hanoi, the US simply didn’t like it.
After the communist victory at Dien Bien Phu, the French negotiated a peace (without much choice) that forced them to give up the North (where the communists were strongest).
The French slowly disengaged from the South over the next decade leaving a fragile Vietnamese government in the South that had no interest in joining the communists in the North (1 million fled during partition).
The US did back a fractured, unstable government in the South in order to contain communism - I’m not arguing that. But to claim that the country, one that lasted 20 years, wasn’t “real” is just silly.
It’s like saying South Korea isn’t real because the UN backs it’s security and the communists had significant support prior to partition.
They had also been supporting the French with materiel and even limited numbers of advisors during the First Indochina War.
There was a war of national liberation against a colonial power, and the US sided with the colonial power.
Of course Ho Chi Minh would win - there were no free elections in the North (100% of votes went for him!) and substantial support in the South. I wouldn’t call that a fair and free election.
Yes, and I agree the US supported the French materially and with advisors.
But South Vietnam was no longer a colonial power. The French were gone and the Vietnamese called the shots (not without foreign influence, I agree, but similar to the USSR and China influence in the North - you pay the bills you get a say).
But none of that infers the South wasn’t a real country.
False.
The US own internal documents stated they believed Ho Chi Minh held enormous popular support, especially in the countryside.
They cancelled the elections and instead propped up a bloody dictatorship. Nothing natural about the South, it was completely artificial, incompetent, and repressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940%E2%80%931946_in_French_In...
So are you arguing that South Korea is a “completely artificial, incompetent and repressive” country? It was also a dictatorship after the war for about 20 years. But Vietnam still is today after 50.
No, I'm arguing about Vietnam. Please try not to sidetrack the conversation.
Fact: Ho Chi Minh had huge popular support and would have won general elections, a fact the US didn't like at that stage and so they made sure it didn't happen. Instead, they propped up one of the most brutal dictatorships in the region, one so bad they had to allow its removal and the assassination of their puppet dictator.
They also destroyed South Vietnam, killing villagers, poisoning the land and bombing the hell out of North Vietnam.
And they failed because they were foreign aggressors.
Fact: the US doesn't get to choose the form of government of other countries. When they try to do it by military force, they are invaders and aggressors.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, those are the facts.
The North was a brutal dictatorship propped up by China and the USSR.
The South was a brutal dictatorship propped up by the West.
Both had Vietnamese supporters. Again, to dismiss the South as not a real country is just twisting facts. It was a civil war between two Vietnamese factions and the South lost. Those are the facts.
The mythology the North has created around the war (just like every country does) is helped to keep its grip on power but is a gross oversimplification.
And you’re right, the US doesn’t get to choose which government a country has. But neither does Vietnam when it comes to Cambodia or Laos, but hey, they hasn’t stopped them!
Please stop trying to sidetrack the conversation.
> The North was a brutal dictatorship propped up by China and the USSR.
No, it was a nationalist anti colonial government that aimed at the reunification and independence of Vietnam.
> Both had Vietnamese supporters. Again, to dismiss the South as not a real country is just twisting facts
It was an artificial creation imposed upon the Vietnamese by external parties; hence not a real country.
> The mythology the North has created around the war
Oh, there is a mythology alright! There's a whole myth created about this war, mostly by the foreign country that fought it -- to devastating effect to both Vietnam and the invaders who fought in it -- and who claims to be freedom loving and is still trying to heal from the wounds and the nonsense the war it inflicted caused upon thousands. This mythology is necessary in order to reconcile their aspirations to being a beacon of freedom and the fact they acted on the side of colonial oppressors.
> But neither does Vietnam when it comes to Cambodia or Laos, but hey, they hasn’t stopped them
But we are not talking about that, are we? If we were, we could condemn Vietnam's interference with other countries. Regrettably, this was about Vietnam's own struggle for independence and US interference with said independence.
When the US was fighting for its own independence, that's good. When they were stopping and interfering with another country's, that's bad. The same country can act good and bad at times. This was a case when the US was bad.
It wasn't a civil war, not to begin with at least. The US installed a dictatorship in the South (the dictator they propped up was so bad they ended up greenlighting his removal and "accidental" assassination), with the promise of free elections. When predictions showed Ho Chi Minh would have won the elections in the South by a landslide, they simply cancelled the election.
That's not Vietnamese vs Vietnamese, it's Vietnamese vs colonial power.
In any colonial administration, people cozy with the colonial power will defend it and resent a change, of course.
The US never installed a government in the South. That was the French as a part of the ‘54 Treaty.
And your comment about a “free and fair” election makes me laugh. What do you suppose the vote would have been in the North? 100%? Probably.
Clearly a lot of Vietnamese opposed the communist regime. They lost, despite the support of the US. And the North won, with the support of China and the USSR.
There is not “rightful” winner, just the winner.
Brave words for someone going against the current consensus about the Vietnam war.
Also, please avoid name calling.
The US in effect propped up and backed the dictatorship. They also helped topple it and install successive and increasingly incompetent military dictatorships to replace it. Woo!
> There is not “rightful” winner, just the winner.
Nah, in the case of a national independence movement against colonial oppressors, there's a rightful winner.
Their errors and failures are their own, but they were the right side in that war and the US was the wrong side.
And torrents of blood.
Americans mourn 58,000 dead, but the NVC lost well north of a million.
The difference is that with no outside meddling and support, South Vietnam wouldn't have existed or would have existed very briefly until a Communist electoral victory of the whole country. Without the US in Vietnamese affair, there is no North-South war.
And the US didn’t get significantly involved (beyond material support for the French) in Vietnam until the early 1960’s with the help of military advisors. The build up didn’t start until around ‘65 when it was apparent the South would collapse (through a combination of communist subversion but also a lot of in fighting) The South existed as an independent state for a few years - barely, I would agree. But it existed.
It's not your right to decide whether people have free will or not. It's their call. "Deciding" for them is called colonialism.
Ho Chi Minh had huge popular support; precisely what the US feared.
PS: before the US fucked things up, Ho Chi Minh even looked up to them and fully expected their support against the French. That's how bad the US fucked up.
And your comment about “free will” is telling. How much “free will” do the Vietnamese have today?
The only difference is it’s Vietnamese elite that control the masses, not some foreign power.
The liberated themselves from Japanese and then French control, with limited ( some arms) outside help, so that's just false.
They ended up getting rid of the mightiest army in the world, after all.
False. Did you know the Viet Minh initially counted with support from the US? When it was an anti Japanese struggle, of course. Initial US assessments even thought the French should get the fuck out; those sentiments were overruled by others in the US, sadly.
The Vietnamese struggle was a struggle of national liberation. Aided from the outside like all resistance organizations, sure -- like the French resistance against the Nazis was. Didn't make France any less real. Imagine if the Allies had partitioned France in two after the war, claimed the last Nazi held parts were to be ruled by Germany's successors or whatever, and that the ensuing fight to reunify France was "a civil war" and that the free (non German) France was "just as artificial".
> I’m not sure what your point is?
That the US sided with colonial powers and against an independence movement. Not their finest hour.
> How much “free will” do the Vietnamese have today?
More than they would have had had the US backed dictatorship won.
Not that it matters: it's not for you to decide. There's no White Man's Burden to send civilization to other countries. Let them have their self determination and arrange their governments how they like.
Above all, don't murder them by the thousands, destroy the countryside and poison their land when you don't like the government they choose.
The US sided with a colonial power and was therefore wrong.
They also destroyed the country in their alleged attempt to "save" it. They were savage about it. Brutal.
Please stop it with the sidetracking attempts. We're talking about Vietnam, whether the US was the aggressor, and whether calling it the liberation of Saigon makes sense.
However for the rest you're on point. South Vietnam was a fake regime propped up by the French initially and then the US, had no legitimacy, wasn't democratic ( which could have been a saving grace for it) and was in US-backed violation of the Geneva conference. That's not to say there weren't anti-communists in Vietnam, they were just a small minority (Ho Chi Minh had very strong support in the North, which was more populous).
The communists certainly had strong support in the North (they had secured power and purged any opposing elements, including within their party). They also had support in the south, but were forced to infiltrate hundreds of thousands over the war to sustain a fighting force as they weren’t able to grow it organically in the South (also shown during the 1968 Tet Offensive where no population center or military unit “flipped” to the communist side).
It kind of was though. It was created temporarily until elections are held by a treaty over fears the communists will have control over all of Vietnam ( they would have), and existed solely due to direct and heavy American support. It wasn't a country based on self-determination or anything of the like.
And I suppose you could say the same about the American Rebellion. It never would have succeeded without support from the French. Does that mean the fledgling Continental Congress wasn’t a real country?
OP said the North was “right” because the South was X,Y,Z.
I countered with “the North also did X,Y,Z.”, thus countering their claims that the North was somehow “more pure or righteous”.
Maybe it is whataboutism, but that seems appropriate when someone is trying to claim superiority to another?
Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?
The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.
The US policy in Vietnam boiled down to one thing: body count. US only real measure of success was how many Vietcong/PAVN they killed; and because they had no way of telling the difference -- nor did they care much -- this effectively meant "kill as many Vietnamese as possible" (they were encouraged to consider any casualty as VC, overrepresenting their numbers). And to top it out, they engaged in massive forced resettlement, pillage, rape, destroyed foliage and the ecosystem, and poisoned the land.
Think about it.
Americans living in Vietnam claim the Vietnamese don't hate them. Even ex veterans visiting the country report this. That's pretty amazing all things considered.
I mean we’re nearly 50 years past their victory? When are they going to “enact the American rights Ho Chi Minh showed so much admiration for”?
They delivered on independence from colonial powers, and on gaining self determination. No small feat!
I'm not sure what you believe they promised.
Vietnam was devastated as a country. The land itself, and the people. Countless Vietnamese were killed, far more than whatever the US lost in the war. The US did a number on them, the effects of which are still felt. It's a wonder these days they don't hate America (which by all accounts they don't).
Initial admiration for US values naturally fell once the US waged war on them, and within Vietnam leadership the hardliners gained power. Being attacked tends to give voice to the hardliners and sideline the "liberals".
It's a matter of record Ho Chi Minh initially admired the US and expected their support. It's a matter of record the US feared he would win the elections and so they cancelled them. You can argue till you're blue in the face, those two facts will remain.
You’re doing an awful lot of hand waving to explain why Vietnam still doesn’t enact the freedom “they admire so much”. Your claim that Ho Chi Minh’s “disappointment from lack of US support” is the reason why Vietnamese still don’t have those rights rings pretty hollow.
> Ho Chi Minh admired the US
Which is a matter of public record.
> his government exacted brutal land reforms even the hardliners had to call out as “going too far”.
This has nothing to do with anything. Please try not to sidetrack the conversation: the Viet Minh and its successors were fighting a struggle of independence, the US could have been their ally but instead chose to turn against them and trash their country, while propping up a dictator so bad they later gave the greenlight for its removal (and whooopsie, his "accidental" assassination). Not to speak of the appalling Phoenix Program assassination campaign whose subtle tactics included, by the admission of its practitioners, listening to tips about alleged VC, knocking on the door, then wasting whoever answered it.
Doesn't seem so freedom loving to me!
> Your claim that Ho Chi Minh’s “disappointment from lack of US support” is the reason why Vietnamese still don’t have those rights rings pretty hollow.
Who knows what would have happened had the US supported Vietnam's anti colonial struggles instead of siding with their oppressors. It couldn't have been worse than the unmitigated disaster the US conducted.
You’re missing my point entirely. Ho Chi Minh claimed he admired the US’ freedoms. Then once the North was established, his government enacted brutal land reforms that even the communists said went too far.
What I’m saying is words are cheap and Ho Chi Minh never admired the US’ freedoms (maybe theoretically?), they were just empty words to try and get a powerful ally on his side.
That’s clearly a factual statement when you realize the VCP has zero intention, even today, of giving the people of Vietnam the same freedoms you claim Ho Chi Minh so admired, almost 60 years after taking power over all of Vietnam.
And yes, the Phoenix program was effective because it used the same tactics against the communists they used against villages in the South. It's pretty rich seeing the North call out the US and South foe those tactics - truly the pot calling the kettle black.
Let me correct you: it's not "the North". It's called Vietnam and the US waged a war against it (mostly against South Vietnam).
Also, it's the world -- we -- who is appalled at the way the US behaved in Vietnam, including its assassination campaigns, Agent Orange, Napalm, mass murder, etc.
As for what may have happened, unlike you I'm not a mind reader to know what was false or faked. I do know if the US hadn't waged war on Vietnam, things would have been way better, if only because many thousands more Vietnamese would have lived, the country wouldn't have been destroyed and who knows, an unscathed Vietnam might have turned way more sympathetic to the West.
You and people like you are sickening.
The US has a history of this - Castro wooed the US too. His party didn't even describe itself as socialist until years after the US slammed the door in his face and the Soviets didn't. Once the Soviets had bought him, Castro made concession after concession that he could have made to the US instead.
To claim Ho Chi Minh or Castro would have been freedom loving leaders is laughable.
What is a matter of fact is that both attempted to get US support before they turned elsewhere. And that support could have come with strings that might have produced much better outcomes.
Just like it did when Castro turned to the Soviets. He proved he could be bought, but the US was unwilling to buy.
As for Ho, he was more concerned with self determination and anyi-imperialism than the specifics of the resulting regime. US support with strings there too could have avoided millions of dead and gotten a more moderate regime.
In terms of pure numbers of men they certainly contributed less than the Kuomintang, but in terms of overall impact it's close to impossible to say.
Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? It makes sense if you claim to fight the Americans because they're evil capitalists but Vietnam turned around to adopt chinese-style reforms and is now mostly friendly towards the US.
> The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese.
The CCP is in power because they defeated the KMT, but decades later they adopted capitalism and today justify their rule through nationalism.
What's the point of a civil war if you eventually end up adopting most of the other side's policies?
Yes.
> and is now mostly friendly towards the US.
Independence works like that. When you let a country decide instead of forcing by military power, they might even choose to like you -- or at least, not hate you.
The US and Britain are friends and allies in modern times, after all.
There the communists were installed to power by the invading Russian army, even if false revolutionary and liberation histories were made up after the facts.
The few places where there were indeed communists fighting for liberation, i.e. Tito in Yugoslavia or Enver Hoxha in Albania, so they had some legitimacy, were precisely the places which later escaped from being under strict Russian control.
For Yugoslavia and Albania, what you say seems to apply.