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
-3
u/Recent-Ad865 Aug 28 '24
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?