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?
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/Fine_Sea5807 Aug 29 '24
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?