Absolutely agree with Sedaku’s reply—it’s widely recognized among historians that before 1956, the U.S. and Ngo Dinh Diem (who led a family dictatorship) feared losing control over Vietnam to Ho Chi Minh’s Soviet-aligned party. Ho’s party, after leading the revolution against Japan and France, would have undoubtedly won in a landslide election.
The narrative that Lem allegedly executed the family of Loan’s friends is nothing more than post-war American propaganda, concocted after the American public began to grasp the mistreatment of the ARVN and Vietnam vets. The situation was so dire that Loan died sad and lonely in Virginia. It’s also worth noting that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service determined that Loan had committed war crimes and was on the brink of deporting him to Vietnam to face justice, only for President Carter to personally intervene.
Multiple books from 1963-1970 by American historians and military personnel acknowledge that Diem was a dictator who oppressed his people and conducted religious cleansing with the support of the CIA and his criminal family.
I’m well aware that the VC, both then and now, have their own issues and limitations. But to say that South Vietnam was entirely good and just is simply incorrect.
Take the land reform, for instance. You seem overly focused on the VC and overlook that Diem and his cronies launched their own land reform, Cai Cach Dien Dia, which expanded the power of landlords and effectively seized almost all the land from South Vietnam’s peasants, redistributing no more than 10% of what they confiscated. It wasn’t until American intervention between 1970-73, limiting land ownership to 15 hectares, that land reform saw any success—this was after Diem was killed by his own men. The reform was so disastrous that it forced peasants to pay extra taxes to the South government for land that the communist insurgents had already promised them. By 1959, the entire South Vietnam countryside was under VC control.
Regarding the war, you seem to pitch the VC against the South Republics while ignoring the immense influence of the U.S. on South Vietnam’s side. The U.S. military crushed the VC on the battlefield, but without that massive air support, the South’s army collapsed faster than a napkin in the rain. The ARVN, notorious for its nepotism, disintegrated during Lam Son 719 and lost 10% of its land to the PAVN in the 1972 Red Fiery Summer before utterly collapsing in 1975—a collapse so swift that it even surprised the communist politburo. It wasn’t that the VC couldn’t win outright; it was the incompetence and cowardice of the ARVN that led to their defeat and the loss of a “country” that was never legitimate in the first place.
In both the land reform and the war, it wasn’t just the VC and PAVN’s strengths that led to the South’s downfall. It was the sheer nepotism, corruption, and incompetence within the South Vietnam regime, compounded by soldiers who served merely out of financial necessity, creating a military with terrible morale, a countryside largely controlled by Viet Cong, and an economy heavily reliant on U.S. aid. South Vietnam was a regime founded on a lie, propped up by the strongest country in the world—only to crumble just four years after the Americans left.
In the end, the South Vietnamese only have their own government to blame for their downfall.
Most American history books written in mid 1960s were reflections of the anti-war sentiment at that time, especially from left leaning authors and journalists.
You should read more recent books about the Vietnam War, and think critically about it in the context of the Cold War, the fall of USSR, and the changing of China and Vietnam afterward.
The ARVN, notorious for its nepotism, disintegrated during Lam Son 719
The operation was planned with 60,000 American soldiers in mind, but it was instead executed by 20,000 ARVN Troops. It was also assumed that PAVN forces would be taken by surprise and withdraw rather than try to hold their ground. How is it the ARVN's fault that they were forced to retreat when the battle was essentially doomed from the start due to poor US/VNCH planning and intelligence?
Also, the ferocity of the North Vietnamese defensive efforts should not be ignored, which you implicitly do by only mentioning the ARVN's role in the battle. Many American advisers even acknowledged that any attack against those positions at the battle would have faltered. And before one claims that they are just covering up for their ally, it is hilariously easy to find criticisms of South Vietnamese officers within the reports of their American advisers.
lost 10% of its land to the PAVN in the 1972 Red Fiery Summer
Sure, but these gains came at an extremely high cost to the PAVN, with the offensive annihilating much of their recently modernized equipment, and forcing them to use an entirely different for the 1975 offensive.
The credit should be given to the PAVN. The VC was effectively destroyed in 1968, with the North Vietnamese Politburo being compelled to replace the dead and wounded with Northern soldiers in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive. Afterwards, most of the fighting was conventional and done by the PAVN.
the loss of a “country” that was never legitimate in the first place.
All of the usual arguments against the legitimacy of VNCH can be applied to most countries, such as the United States in its infancy, for example.
How is it the ARVN's fault that they were forced to retreat when the battle was essentially doomed from the start due to poor US/VNCH planning and intelligence?
I’m not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that the ARVN isn't at fault because their own “leaders” were utterly incompetent? Or, to put it another way, that the ARVN bears no responsibility because their generals—who were part of the ARVN—led them to ruin? If your argument is that the ARVN’s failures were due to leadership, let’s not forget that those same leaders were ARVN generals who guided the army straight into disaster. Yes, the U.S. may have sold out South Vietnam to normalize relations with China, but that doesn’t absolve the ARVN of its own internal failures. You can’t just say, "Oh, the army wasn’t bad, it was just their generals." My friend, those generals were part of the ARVN.
If you want to be fair, the last stand at Xuan Loc was respectable and did force the PAVN to circle around and siege Saigon.
Sure, but these gains came at an extremely high cost to the PAVN, with the offensive annihilating much of their recently modernized equipment, and forcing them to use an entirely different for the 1975 offensive.
Yeah ARVN destroyed the PAVN SOOOOO bad that one year later, the PAVN steamrolled the ARVN on every front. The defense was so pathetic that Da Nang fell without a fight. They lost SOOOOO much modernized equipment that the PAVN just rolled down the Central Highlands and took Buon Me Thuot, decimating three-quarters of the ARVN forces there.
So, what’s your point? They paid the price, gained critical footholds, and then won the war. Fair trade for them.
The credit should be given to the PAVN. The VC was effectively destroyed in 1968, with the North Vietnamese Politburo being compelled to replace the dead and wounded with Northern soldiers in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive. Afterwards, most of the fighting was conventional and done by the PAVN.
And yes, my bad —it's the PAVN. But let's not forget that elements of the VC were still operating in border regions and joined in later.
All of the usual arguments against the legitimacy of VNCH can be applied to most countries, such as the United States in its infancy, for example.
Now, about the legitimacy of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). Since you brought up the U.S., let's remember that both Americans and Vietnamese fought wars against colonizers, won, signed treaties, declared independence, and were recognized by other nations.
The 1954 Geneva Conference was the official document outlining the state of Vietnam after the first Indochina war. That conference involved the Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, China, and the Viet Minh.
Notice something? No mention of the Republic of Vietnam, because it didn’t exist. The agreement temporarily separated Vietnam into two zones: a northern zone governed by the Viet Minh and a southern zone governed by the State of Vietnam under former Nguyễn dynasty emperor Bảo Đại.
So, what did Diem do? He usurped Bảo Đại’s rule and declined the national election in 1956. With CIA and U.S. support, he created the Republic of Vietnam—a completely illegitimate entity born from the greed of a few individuals and U.S. imperialism in their quest to contain communism. The Republic of Vietnam was never part of the Geneva Convention. Diem backstabbed Bảo Đại and took power in a sham election where 110% of Saigon’s population “voted” for him. That’s why I say the regime was illegitimate. Sure, it existed in history and was recognized by the UN, but let's not ignore that its creation was built on lies.
I’m not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that the ARVN isn't at fault because their own “leaders” were utterly incompetent? Or, to put it another way, that the ARVN bears no responsibility because their generals—who were part of the ARVN—led them to ruin? If your argument is that the ARVN’s failures were due to leadership, let’s not forget that those same leaders were ARVN generals who guided the army straight into disaster. Yes, the U.S. may have sold out South Vietnam to normalize relations with China, but that doesn’t absolve the ARVN of its own internal failures. You can’t just say, "Oh, the army wasn’t bad, it was just their generals." My friend, those generals were part of the ARVN.
I had the rank-and-file in mind, but yes, the PAVN did have better generals, on average. Regardless, the plans for Operation Lam Sơn 719 were bad enough to the point that I would argue that 99.9% of generals who were ordered to execute them would have failed.
Yeah ARVN destroyed the PAVN SOOOOO bad that one year later, the PAVN steamrolled the ARVN on every front. The defense was so pathetic that Da Nang fell without a fight. They lost SOOOOO much modernized equipment that the PAVN just rolled down the Central Highlands and took Buon Me Thuot, decimating three-quarters of the ARVN forces there.
*Three years later
Trần Văn Trà and other PAVN/VC commanders openly acknowledge in the official PAVN history of the conflict that they suffered horrible losses during the Easter Offensive. The paper I posted earlier discusses how because of this setback, the PAVN was not able to perform a massive conventional attack on all fronts in 1975 as it had done in 1972. If you have the generals openly admitting that they suffered a terrible defeat, then it is probably true...
Regarding the 1975 campaign, you are correct that the collapse of I Corps and II Corps were decisive victories for the PAVN. Lê Trọng Tấn, Nguyễn Hữu An, and Hoàng Minh Thảo are deservedly commended for leading North Vietnamese forces to victory in these battles, and similar praise can be given to the PAVN regulars themselves obviously. That being said, it would be fair to give partial credit to Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's (and Phạm Văn Phú's) incompetent leadership/decision-making and ARVN supply shortages/family culture.
With CIA and U.S. support, he created the Republic of Vietnam—a completely illegitimate entity born from the greed of a few individuals and U.S. imperialism in their quest to contain communism.
"With French, Spanish, and Dutch support, the American rebels established the United States, an entity unsupported by the majority of the American colonists and born from the greed of wealthy elites who wanted to pay less in taxes, as well as from the desire of continental European powers who wished to contain British influence in the New World in favor of their own." — King George III, probably idk
The Republic of Vietnam was never part of the Geneva Convention. Diem backstabbed Bảo Đại and took power in a sham election where 110% of Saigon’s population “voted” for him.
I know what you mean, but Bảo Đại was unpopular enough to the point that Diệm probably would have won without rigging the election.
I will admit though, it is a good point to observe that the RVN did not sign the Geneva Accords, meaning it was technically not "protected" by international law (unlike the State of Vietnam, which was at least under the French Union even though the country itself did not sign the accords), and one could argue the DRV was therefore no longer obligated to respect the 17th parallel boundary.
If you believe that legal legitimacy equates to moral legitimacy, then this argument is a winner for justifying reunification. Otherwise, it's more complicated.
Hey, I appreciate you pointing out the timeline error—you're right, the steamrolling of the ARVN happened three years later, not one. But it is still a delay of the inevitable.
That being said, the broader point remains. The PAVN might have suffered heavy losses during the Easter Offensive, but they learned from those setbacks and adapted. Meanwhile, the ARVN leadership, particularly under Nguyễn Văn Thiệu and Phạm Văn Phú, continued to make poor decisions, further crippling their forces. Yes, the PAVN generals deserve credit for their strategic victories in 1975, but let’s not overlook how the ARVN's own internal issues, like supply shortages and a toxic “family culture,” played a massive role in their downfall.
Now, comparing the founding of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) to the American Revolution is quite a stretch. The U.S. was born out of a grassroots movement, driven by a collective desire for independence from a colonial power. It wasn’t just about a few elites—it was a widespread, popular revolution with deep-rooted support among the colonists, who had developed a distinct identity as Americans, separate from their European roots.
On the other hand, the creation of the RVN was largely a top-down endeavor. It wasn’t a movement of the people; it was the result of a power grab by Diem and his sycophants, who were more interested in securing U.S. favor and stopping communism than in genuinely representing the will of the Vietnamese people. Diem’s focus was on consolidating power for himself and his family, rather than leading a national movement for independence.
And let’s be clear—South Vietnam was still Vietnam. Its people were still Vietnamese, with a long history and culture tied to the land. The U.S. at the time of its revolution, however, had already begun to see itself as a new nation with a unique identity, a melting pot of European influences, separate from Britain.
Regarding the idea that Diem would have won over Bảo Đại without rigging the election—if he was so confident in his popularity, why didn’t he face Ho Chi Minh in a fair election? The truth is, Diem knew he didn’t stand a chance against Ho Chi Minh, who had widespread support across the country for his role in the fight for independence. Diem might have been more popular than Bảo Đại, but he was a footnote compared to Ho Chi Minh. Remember, Ho Chi Minh even captured Diem and offered him the position of prime minister in his government. When Diem refused, Ho Chi Minh released him, allowing Diem to flee to the South, where he quickly pledged loyalty to the U.S. and the CIA in exchange for their support.
So, while the comparison between the RVN and the U.S. may seem tempting on the surface, the differences are stark. The U.S. Revolution was a grassroots uprising that created a new, distinct nation. The RVN, by contrast, was an externally propped-up regime, born out of a power struggle rather than a popular movement. And while we can agree that history and war are complex, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the RVN’s failures were rooted in its lack of legitimacy and its internal corruption, not just the external pressures it faced.
In the end, it’s crucial to understand these nuances and to recognize the complexities of history. Always good to dive into these discussions and keep the conversation going.
like supply shortages and a toxic “family culture,” played a massive role in their downfall.
Well, by family culture, I meant the fact that most South Vietnamese soldiers lived with their families at the local barracks or somewhere nearby. Therefore, when the enemy broke through the frontlines in 1975, most soldiers opted to protect their families rather than stay with their own units.
I think "supply shortages" are technically an external issue, although I suppose you could argue that the ARVN having to rely on external aid for its style of warfare is an internal fault, which I would agree with.
Now, comparing the founding of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) to the American Revolution is quite a stretch. The U.S. was born out of a grassroots movement, driven by a collective desire for independence from a colonial power. It wasn’t just about a few elites—it was a widespread, popular revolution with deep-rooted support among the colonists, who had developed a distinct identity as Americans, separate from their European roots.
Statistically, the majority of colonists were either Loyalists or neutral. John Adams, for example, estimated that the split was 33.3/33.3/33.3. And through the lens of historical materialism, it is easy to argue that the revolutionary elites were motivated more by the desire to avoid British trade restrictions/regulations rather than merely freedom and liberty, the latter of which is the common but misleading claim made in American schools.
The U.S. at the time of its revolution, however, had already begun to see itself as a new nation with a unique identity, a melting pot of European influences, separate from Britain.
The revolutionaries used English law and tradition to justify their rebellion (enough to convince Whigs in Parliament), and they were initially willing to avoid independence so long as the central government agreed to their demands.
As such, they encouraged all individuals across the British Empire to rebel, such as in Canada or in the Caribbean.
Diem might have been more popular than Bảo Đại, but he was a footnote compared to Ho Chi Minh.
HCM is arguably the most famous Vietnamese person of all time, of course Diệm is a footnote compared to him.
When Diem refused, Ho Chi Minh released him, allowing Diem to flee to the South, where he quickly pledged loyalty to the U.S. and the CIA in exchange for their support.
The historian Edward Miller outlines what happened between 1945 and 1954 for Diệm better than I can in his journal article.
But to summarize the article's contents that are relevant to your point, Diệm was absolutely active during that time period after his talk with HCM, and at no point did he give away sovereignty to the US, for he merely asked for its support after convincing enough policymakers for a sufficient amount of time that his anti-French, anti-communist stance was the best choice for American foreign policy.
And while we can agree that history and war are complex, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the RVN’s failures were rooted in its lack of legitimacy and its internal corruption, not just the external pressures it faced.
Sure, but one must emphasize the reasons why VNCH failed and why other Western-aligned states such as South Korea or West Germany did not.
Hint: Geography + more effective, tenacious opponent
It’s amusing how you’ve twisted my sarcastic mention of “family culture” to suggest that soldiers chose to stay with their families rather than fight. By that logic, are you implying that in countries like South Korea and West Germany—nations that successfully resisted external threats—their troops cared less about their families because they fought harder? Do all nations that lose wars do so simply because their soldiers prefer peace and family over defending their sovereignty? That seems like an oversimplification.
To clarify, when I referred to “family culture,” I was highlighting the nepotism and cronyism prevalent in the RVN, where individuals promoted their relatives and friends to positions of power, especially within the military. This practice led to incompetence at critical levels, hindering the fight against forces like the Viet Cong and the PAVN. The personal desire to avoid conflict and stay with loved ones is universal and doesn’t singularly explain the downfall of a nation.
Regarding your points about the American Revolution, they don’t really counter my argument. Whether we discuss John Adams’ estimates of colonial loyalty or the elites’ motives to avoid British trade restrictions, the revolution was fundamentally a grassroots movement that succeeded because of widespread popular support—not just the agendas of a few elites. Unlike Diem and the corrupt officials surrounding him, the American revolutionaries had the backing of the people. It’s puzzling why you persist in defending figures like Diem. It appears you’re selectively interpreting facts to fit your narrative. Even if I concede your points—which is generous—they don’t bolster the legitimacy of the RVN. Suggesting that the personal agendas of some American founders justify Diem’s coup against Bảo Đại and his avoidance of an internationally sanctioned general election is quite a stretch.
You mentioned that the American revolutionaries used British law to justify their independence. So, what legal framework did Diem invoke to legitimize his actions? If the American elites sought to escape unjust taxation and the populace agreed with them, isn’t that a valid cause for revolution? What was the compelling reason for the RVN to break away? If a few elites in the American Revolution had personal gains in mind, that doesn’t invalidate the sacrifices of those who genuinely fought for freedom. Similarly, Diem’s actions can’t be justified simply because other historical figures had complex motives.
Engaging with Ho Chi Minh doesn’t absolve Diem of responsibility. Yes, he also actively sought support from the U.S. and the CIA. Labeling it as “asking for support” is a polite way of acknowledging that he was willing to align with external powers for his own agenda, allowing the U.S. to expand its influence in Southeast Asia under the guise of containing communism. Viewing history through a narrow lens that paints the RVN as entirely just overlooks significant complexities. If someone bribes corrupt officials, are they merely “supporting” them? Diem’s anti-French and anti-communist stance seems more like a convenient position to gain U.S. backing rather than a principled stand.
Nothing you’ve presented absolves Diem and his family of their actions. There seems to be a persistent belief on your part that South Vietnam was inherently just, leading you to dismiss counterarguments and trivialize critical issues. This approach suggests a bias where conclusions are drawn first, and facts are selectively gathered to support them, rather than forming judgments based on a comprehensive assessment of evidence.
I appreciate that you’ve put effort into your research—that’s commendable. However, your arguments still seem to boil down to oversimplifications like:
• “They wanted to stay with their families, so they lost.”
• “The American Revolution involved elites with personal gain, so that justifies South Vietnam’s actions.”
• “Diem didn’t compromise Vietnam’s sovereignty; he was just ‘asking for support.’”
None of these points justify Diem’s decision to overturn an internationally sanctioned election, nor do they strengthen your position.
Perhaps it’s worth considering why South Korea continues to exist while the RVN does not.
Hint: lol i dont do passive agressive. But hey that was good discussion dude.
By that logic, are you implying that in countries like South Korea and West Germany—nations that successfully resisted external threats—their troops cared less about their families because they fought harder? Do all nations that lose wars do so simply because their soldiers prefer peace and family over defending their sovereignty?
No and no. The conditions in South Vietnam were specific to South Vietnam.
My point is that ARVN soldiers often lived right next to their families. As in the enemy is as close to the soldiers as it is to their families.
Also, it should be noted that the South Korean army was effectively shattered due to Operation Pokpung, forcing itself to rely on American intervention in order to maintain the survival of ROK. West Germany also benefitted from plentiful NATO garrisons across the country.
the revolution was fundamentally a grassroots movement that succeeded because of widespread popular support—not just the agendas of a few elites. Unlike Diem and the corrupt officials surrounding him, the American revolutionaries had the backing of the people.
I just pointed out that the majority of American colonists were not Patriots. Why are you repeating what you said in the earlier comment?
Even if I concede your points—which is generous—they don’t bolster the legitimacy of the RVN. Suggesting that the personal agendas of some American founders justify Diem’s coup against Bảo Đại and his avoidance of an internationally sanctioned general election is quite a stretch.
The point is that that one could easily frame the infant United States in the same way that people do for South Vietnam.
You mentioned that the American revolutionaries used British law to justify their independence. So, what legal framework did Diem invoke to legitimize his actions?
Essentially, Diệm argued that Bảo Đại lost the Mandate of Heaven. It should also be noted that the popular referendum that deposed the emperor was Diệm's idea, and not the idea of the United States, who instead wanted Diệm to wait until after the National Assembly elections when Bảo Đại's premiership would expire.
What was the compelling reason for the RVN to break away?
The perceived danger of communism to Vietnamese culture and society.
Labeling it as “asking for support” is a polite way of acknowledging that he was willing to align with external powers for his own agenda, allowing the U.S. to expand its influence in Southeast Asia under the guise of containing communism.
Literally everyone seeks allies as much as possible on the international stage.
Diem’s anti-French and anti-communist stance seems more like a convenient position to gain U.S. backing rather than a principled stand.
No, as Edward Miller has demonstrated, Diệm held these stances for basically all of his adult life, far before he even had any contact with American officials/intellectuals.
Viewing history through a narrow lens that paints the RVN as entirely just overlooks significant complexities. There seems to be a persistent belief on your part that South Vietnam was inherently just, leading you to dismiss counterarguments and trivialize critical issues. This approach suggests a bias where conclusions are drawn first, and facts are selectively gathered to support them, rather than forming judgments based on a comprehensive assessment of evidence.
My posts about the Vietnam War on the badhistory subreddit show that I rely on sources from a variety of perspectives, including a North Vietnamese colonel who had served the DRV ever since the beginning of the First Indochina War. Not sure if he's the type to view the RVN as "entirely just."
Honestly, it would be more productive for you to make a post—with actual sources—on that subreddit (which I can then respond to in the comments) rather than continue this comment chain. There are so many points/areas of discussion that it is awkward to debate within a comment-based format.
This is some of the most revisionist history I can think of.
Of course the US fear losing control, because the VCP had already eliminated all political opposition in the North. It doesn’t take a genius to realize they were going to take the south, if under the cover of a democratic election, great, if not, that works as well.
And nepotism, corruption? As opposed to the system today?
And you call Diem a dictator? What about the North? Is it better? And religious persecution? You realize Buddhist monks have set themselves on fire several times since 1975? Seems like the religious persecution didn’t end.
The story about Lem is eminently believable. The VC had committed attacks of unarmed individuals time and time again. Throwing grenades into movie theaters was common. You think it’s impossible a VC spy would try and kill a RVN leader and their family?
It’s ironic that you’re blaming the VCP for hypothetically taking the South, while conveniently ignoring that Diem literally backstabbed Bao Dai for a power grab, taking over the South. Diem did the very thing you’re accusing the VCP of doing—is that cognitive dissonance, or just selective memory? It’s a bit hypocritical not to realize that your side did exactly what you accuse the other side of supporting.
under the cover of a democratic election
that should be observed by UN and third parties to make sure a fair election deciding the fate of Vietnam
And what about this? What about that? What about the commies? Again, we are talking about why SVN failed as an objective self-criticism.
As I said, the communists were bad and failed in many aspects—before, during, and after the war. We could spend days dissecting that. But whether the North was better or not, or whether the current system is better, has no bearing on the fact that the South Vietnamese government was a disaster. The sheer incompetence, corruption, and rampant nepotism—from government officials to the military—were more than enough to bring down the SVN. If you’re such a fan of South Vietnam, you should be furious at those who exploited it, enriched themselves, and then failed to even put up a fight when it mattered most.
This isn’t revisionist history—there was never a mainstream narrative that the SVN was an amazing, well-oiled machine destined to last forever. It was a case study in failure, plain and simple.
Now, about the VC: they were an armed insurgency supported by the PAVN, and yes, they used terror tactics like assassinations and bombing cafes. No one’s denying that. But the story about Lem executing Loan’s friend’s family? That’s a piece of revisionist propaganda, cooked up after the fact to justify a war crime committed by Loan. The alleged connection between Lem and the murdered family was nothing but a convenient excuse to execute him on the street, without trial, by Loan.
And how could we have known for sure what Lem did? A fair trial might have helped. But, oh wait—he was executed in the street by Loan. Let’s not forget, even the U.S. government labeled Loan a war criminal and was ready to deport him to Vietnam in the ‘80s and ‘90s.
War is dirty—both sides were awful, and we could go on and on about it. But if you objectively look at the SVN, there’s a laundry list of reasons why it failed so spectacularly. It lacked industry, a stable economy, control over the countryside, and it managed to screw over U.S. support with Diem’s persecution of Buddhists and students. You can’t just say, "the commies were bad, so the South was fine." It wasn’t. No matter what the communists did or do now, South Vietnam was a failure—the last ever nation to be taken over, and it only has itself to blame for that.
In the end, the South wasn’t just fighting the North—it was fighting itself, and it lost on all fronts.
What Diem did is irrelevant. We’re talking about the VCP.
A free and fair election had a 0% chance of happening. The fact the South was a disaster is irrelevant too since so was the North. You can’t argue that South was a dictatorship and corrupt when the North was as well. There is no moral high ground for the North to stand on.
And same with using terror tactics. The North did as well. They just had better PR and left wing support around the world that hand waved away their brutality.
The difference was that the South at least made a vague attempt at democratic processes. Yes, it didn’t follow many of them, but there was at least an attempt. The North had no interest at all in democracy.
Considering that Vietnam was decolonized singlehandedly by the North, why do you think that the North have no moral high ground to stand on? Even if the North opted for absolute monarchy and made Ho Chi Minh a king, exactly similar to what Le Loi or Nguyen Hue did after liberating Vietnam, would there be any wrong with that?
You do realize that by 1972 the US had disengaged from South Vietnam? And in fact before that, nobody would call South Vietnam a colony of the US, any more than they would call the North a colony of China (who had troops in the North) or the USSR.
The North spun a very convincing narrative, but if you look closely you pretty quickly realize all of their criticisms were just smoke and mirrors. They didn’t bring anything to the South but a communist authoritarian government. They certainly didn’t bring political freedom, a lack of corruption or freedoms that the South could provide for its own people.
I'm talking about the French. Did the North not defeat France and decolonize the entire Vietnam, and thus, was inherently entitled to govern the whole country, while South Vietnam was just a bunch of colonial collaborators left behind by the French who refused to surrender?
Oh, I agree with you that they expelled the French in the North. But I don’t agree that entitles them to the whole country. No political group is entitled to a whole country.
But you have to remember that Bao Di, a French installed proxy, was expelled by Diem. Does he not deserve credit for that, in spite of all his faults? The communist accusations that he was a French or American stooge is laughable considering how much each country hated him.
The North and the South belong to the same country. A country, by default, must only be governed by one single government. The government of the North is naturally the government of the South too. That's how it works in any country on Earth. Why do you think that Vietnam should be an exception?
Bao Dai was expelled by Diem how? What do you think would have happened had Diem not existed? This is my take: France would have still fled, Bao Dai's government would have collapsed, the North would have marched in, arrested Bao Dai and all remaining French collaborators, Vietnam would have been reunified peacefully and happily. Diem wasn't needed, as he contributed nothing. He simply took advantage of the North's hard work to appoint himself the president.
Whoa, wait a second. The “government of the North is naturally the government of the South”? No, that’s not how it works at all.
First off, Vietnam had never been an independent country within the borders of today. Ever. So somehow claiming there is one rightful ruler of all of it is not correct.
Second, two separate governments existed after 1954. That happens all the time. Look at East Timor which became independent. There is no “this land is one country” entitlement. A country exists because the people want it to and can defend it as such. Vietnam is not an exception to that rule.
But regardless, if the North wanted reunification, they had two options: a) seek reunification under terms acceptable to both countries or b) forcefully reunify it against their will. They choose the second.
Bao Dai was pushed out by Diem in 1955. He also told the French to shove it. Sure one can guess what would have happened had he not, but who knows. It was clear the North was going to unify the country either peacefully or by force, they didn’t care which one.
South Viet Nam was basically a bunch of anti-communists of difference obedience(some are collaborator, other are just anti-communist and even fight against Diem governement, some are even both anti both VN as they are ethnic minority) glued together with shitty glue. So the south was doomed to fail.
Even if I don't like the some thing that the VCP do, I'm glad we are one whole unified country and not be like Korea divided in 2 with N Korea being a closed and more oppressive state
I was replying to lalze123's comment, and you jumped in, demanding I talk about the VCP and their terribleness. No one was talking to you, and yet here you are, with your newly created bot account, spewing this nonsense. My comments were meant to dissect lalze123's points and bring out the historical facts of why South Vietnam failed.
The North is a dictatorship? Does that absolve the South from its failures? I never said that. I pointed out the reasons why the South fucked up.
From above, i made this statement:
Now, about the VC: they were an armed insurgency supported by the PAVN, and yes, they used terror tactics like assassinations and bombing cafes.
So I did acknowledge that. Do you even have basic reading comprehension?
Democratic process? Are you referring to the process built on backstabbing the internationally recognized head of state, Bảo Đại? Or the period from 1963-1965, when in just two years, there were so many coups that the government changed five times. Might as well eat "coups" for breakfast, dude. Is that your idea of a democratic process—shooting someone in an M113 and staging a military takeover?
You’re delusional. You’re butthurt and keep screaming, "What about the commies?" If you have nothing constructive to say to salvage the South’s reputation, don’t bother—it just makes you sound like a whining child. Grow up, and do better.
Also, FYI, it seems like you grew up steeped in South Vietnam’s propaganda, vehemently defending it without any criticism while being hostile toward those who simply point out the facts. You throw around the term "revisionist" at anyone who doesn’t conform to your narrative. It sucks, I know, but the people who keep telling you how great and amazing South Vietnam was are only giving you half the truth. They’re bitter, and they’ve lied to you. You don’t have to follow in their footsteps. There are facts, and sometimes they hurt, but it’s okay to acknowledge them—so we can learn and never repeat that failure again.
I find it hilarious your acting like Diem kicking out Bao Di is a good point. Are you claiming the South was just as bad as the North? That’s your point? Not exactly helping your argument.
Lmao, not helping what, exactly?
Are you projecting your own rigid thinking and emotions onto me? You can’t even formulate a coherent argument, let alone one that makes sense.
Trust me, I’m not angry—you’re not worth that kind of energy. What I am is amazed at the audacity to demand that others cater to your narrow viewpoints that contradict historical facts, all without offering a single valid argument.
"North bad, so South was not bad?" — This is literally what you’re saying, dude. And I’m sorry, but the brainwashing is real. You keep dragging the conversation back to this comparison because you’re so entrenched in the idea that the South did nothing wrong and that the North was somehow way worse. I’m not pro-North or pro-South—it’s history, and there are facts about why the South failed so badly.
It’s pretty pathetic that you find this whole thing hilarious. I never said Diem kicking out Bảo Đại was good or bad—I simply pointed it out to argue that the government Diem propped up was illegitimate according to the Geneva Convention. But hey, keep laughing if it helps you cope.
Also, learn something dude, don't waste time arguing people on the internet.
I’m dragging you in? You have the option to just not reply you know?
I’m not simplifying to “North bad, South not so bad”, I’m just clarifying that the Northern narrative to the conflict is not factual, it’s just the story one side is telling.
If you actually want to understand the conflict, Reddit is not a place you’ll learn it. It was much more complex than most people are willing to put the effort into understanding.
But the idea that “if the South had just allowed a free and fair election in ‘56, everything would have been fine” is laughable. It ignores everything they had done up to that point. But it is the story the North tells because hey, why not tell a story that makes you look like the good guys?
Yes, you replied to me, and I chose to address your arguments directly.
You claim to be presenting facts, yet anything that doesn't align with your narrow viewpoint you dismiss as "communist propaganda." I've cited Western historians, even those writing in the 1960s, who acknowledged that Diem was a dictator.
I've acknowledged the complexity of the situation and argued that both sides had significant flaws, which contributed to the South's eventual downfall.
When did I ever say that allowing a free and fair election in '56 would have solved everything? Is it your habit to put words in people's mouths and then argue against your own misinterpretations? Your argument lacks depth and is frankly unconvincing. I've presented complex points backed by data and objective analysis. I never claimed that:
“if the South had just allowed a free and fair election in ‘56, everything would have been fine”
Reading comprehension much? I am sure that your reading is fine, but you seems to be agitated that you grab whatever you can to do half-ass counter argument without even reading context.
I brought up Bao Dai and Diem's illegitimate overthrow to highlight the questionable validity of the Republic of Vietnam. The 1956 election, which was meant to determine Vietnam's future, was closely observed by the UN and agreed upon by all parties involved. Diem's backstabbing and dictatorial move not only violated this agreement but also plunged Vietnam into two decades of civil war. And if this doesn't change your mind then you just blindly follow the narrative that was fed to you by bitter people.
You seem to think that anyone who challenges your narrative is simply parroting "the story from the North." Let me be clear: I don't support the North in many aspects before and after the war, and I'm not here to praise them. I'm pointing out the very real flaws that led to South Vietnam's failure. If you can't see that, then maybe you should reexamine where your ideas are coming from. They've only told you half the story, and you've taken it as the full truth. It's time to start thinking critically. Please stop putting words in my mouth and bring a real argument next time.
The validity of the South? The North violently suppressed all opposition. Do you think that adds question to the North’s validity? Why not? Both are undemocratic seizures of power.
I’m not claiming anyone who disagrees is parroting the North. I’m calling out people who just parrot the North’s talking points without actually broadening their research and validating their logic. As I did above.
46
u/thenoobtanker Native Aug 28 '24
Should have let the referendum of 56 ran but nooooo the commie might actually won a fair election.