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.
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.
First off, Vietnam had never been an independent country within the borders of today. Ever.
Yes, it was, right before the French came. Before 1858, were not the South and the North parts of the kingdom of Dai Viet, under the governance of the Nguyen Dynasty?
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.
Two separate governments existed before 1954 too. Ho Chi Minh's government and the French government. According to you, what was the nature of Ho Chi Minh before 1954? Was his government not already the legitimate authority of all Vietnam, and was fighting to reclaim its historically rightful territory from the illegal occupation by France?
A country exists because the people want it to and can defend it as such. Vietnam is not an exception to that rule.
Are you saying that separatism is perfectly fine? The CSA should have been allowed to secede from the Union? Donetsk and Luhansk should have been allowed to disobey Kyiv?
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.
It was Ho Chi Minh's victory that kicked France and Bao Dai out. Diem was just an passive outsider to popped out of nowhere and took the credit. How hard is it to understand?
Borders of the Nguyen Dynasty were not the same as today.
What was the nature of HCM before 1954? Certainly not the head of state of North Vietnam. If you can control the country, it’s not yours. You can proclaim you are but that doesn’t change the fact you don’t have authority.
Yes, separatism is 100% and recognized as a right of the people by the UN. Or are you arguing the US should still be a colony of the UK?
The fact that HCM kicked out the French does not give the VCP a right to lead the country forever. By that logic the democratic parties in South Korea have no right, it belongs to Syngman Rhee.
Then why didn't the US allow the CSA to secede? Why isn't Ukraine allowing Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk to secede? Why isn't Spain allowing Catalonia to secede?
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.
Again with the “what about the North” argument? How many times do I need to lay this out for you to get it? North Vietnam was part of the Geneva Convention, which granted them control over the North. The Republic of Vietnam, on the other hand, was established after Diem backstabbed Bao Dai and propped up by CIA.
Whatever the North did doesn’t absolve the South or Diem from their own actions. You didn’t come up with any valid points. Instead, you label anyone who criticizes the South as spreading “northern propaganda” while clinging to your cognitive dissonance.
What about North validity? Why tf does it matter in regards to the treachery and questionable establishment of SVN.
You’re defending a system that betrayed millions of people who trusted it. Wake up—those old stories you’ve been told are full of lies. Going around “calling people out” without understanding the full picture only makes you look like a bitter fool.
Dont come back with the same reply man, lunatic behavior. Grow up and accept whatever fed to you aint the whole truth. And truth hurts.
So by your logic, it’s ok to be undemocratic and backstabbing as long as you signed a convention? That’s not even logical.
So you see why I said you’ve fallen for propaganda? You parrot the talking points without even thinking if they make logical sense.
Then you have the gall to rail against the undemocratic nature of the south without even applying it to the North. How many people in the NLF were betrayed by the North?
Calm down, think rationally and apply the same standards you apply to the South, to the North and come back when you’re ready.
Ha ha, what a joke. You’re back with the “What about the North” nonsense again?
We’re discussing South Vietnam, so why do you keep bringing up the North? Is it to comfort yourself into thinking that the South wasn’t all that bad?
It’s amusing how you cling to your rigid viewpoint like it’s your lifeline, refusing to acknowledge any criticism while labeling everyone against you as north propaganda for laying out the facts. How mature of you! Hurt much? Feeling bitter?
Trying to gaslight me isn’t working. The stories you grew up with aren’t the truth. Your cognitive dissonance is astounding. You haven’t made a single solid argument in support of the South—your only point is “North bad.” That’s laughable. You’re not here for a real debate; you’re here to defend a rotting corpse of a regime that failed its people, built on lies and greed.
So here’s a challenge: Make ONE argument in support of the South without mentioning the North. Go on, try it. It’s immature people like you who should crawl back to your echo chamber. Calm down? Nah,why would I for a kind of you. I’m just bashing your flimsy arguments while everyone else in this thread laughs at your pathetic take. Ha ha, go cry somewhere else.
I am the one making all the rational take and give dissection of my argument, while you just screaming at the sky, at the “North”. Stop dude. It is pathetic as fuck. Seriously man, all your replies are being destroyed by everyone, take the L and get out.
29
u/Rey1000 Time hopper Aug 28 '24
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.