I mean sure, but look at the country today. Apparently they didn’t admire it that much.
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.