7 ms·

> the liberation of Saigon That was a jarring phrase that helped underscore the great divide between East and West.

kstenerud 5y ago
In this particular case, the North was in the right. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were just one more occupier in a long line of Western occupiers. And even though the Americans didn't intend to become occupiers, that's ultimately what happened (a theme that's repeated itself many times). The Americans and the Vietnamese were fighting different wars with each other. So the North pushed out the occupiers and liberated their country.
- elurg 5y ago
  Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Self rule, just like you'd think. The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.
    - donquichotte 5y ago
      What a beautifully deep thought. Looking at it this way, e.g. supporting ideologies as a means to an end, helps understanding a lot of idiosyncracies in the world, past and present.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      To really underline this, one should read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. Ho Chi Mihn greatly admired many things about the US and so it starts with a quote from the US Declaration of Independence, before it talks about the French revolution, and then attacks the French colonial rule.
      - refurb 5y ago
        I mean sure, but look at the country today. Apparently they didn’t admire it that much.
        the_af 5y ago
        They had a bloody war with the US after they sided with their colonial oppressors and lost thousands of people to that war; that might have something to do with it. 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.
        refurb 5y ago
        Wait, what? Because they had a bloody war they couldn’t actually deliver what they promised? 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”?
        nzmsv 5y ago
        Americans lost two skyscrapers and still talk every year about how the country was scarred. Yes, it was terrible, but imagine a country literally burned by fire from the sky, and future generations continuing to suffer through birth defects. The sheer magnitude of the suffering perpetuated in the name of "freedom" and proper values is staggering. You and people like you are sickening.
        the_af 5y ago
        > Wait, what? Because they had a bloody war they couldn’t actually deliver what they promised? 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.
    - _0ffh 5y ago
      The way I heard the story is more like they mostly held back and rebuilt their numbers while the Kuomintang was left doing most of the actual kicking on it's own.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        That's unfair to the Chinese communists. They fought a different type of war against the Japanese, a guerrilla one, attacking Japanese supply, isolated locations, etc. In terms of pure numbers of men they certainly contributed less than the Kuomintang, but in terms of overall impact it's close to impossible to say.
    - elurg 5y ago
      > Self rule, just like you'd think. Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? It makes sense if you claim to fight the Americans because they're evil capitalists but Vietnam turned around to adopt chinese-style reforms and is now mostly friendly towards the US. > The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. The CCP is in power because they defeated the KMT, but decades later they adopted capitalism and today justify their rule through nationalism. What's the point of a civil war if you eventually end up adopting most of the other side's policies?
      - the_af 5y ago
        > Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? Yes. > and is now mostly friendly towards the US. Independence works like that. When you let a country decide instead of forcing by military power, they might even choose to like you -- or at least, not hate you. The US and Britain are friends and allies in modern times, after all.
  - mmarq 5y ago
    In fact all communist revolutions, bar the Russian, were nationalist/liberation revolutions or at least started like that. Then they became oppressive regimes (and that was the point since the beginning, maybe).
    - adrian_b 5y ago
      I hope that you do not count what happened in most Eastern European countries as communist or liberation revolutions. There the communists were installed to power by the invading Russian army, even if false revolutionary and liberation histories were made up after the facts. The few places where there were indeed communists fighting for liberation, i.e. Tito in Yugoslavia or Enver Hoxha in Albania, so they had some legitimacy, were precisely the places which later escaped from being under strict Russian control. For Yugoslavia and Albania, what you say seems to apply.
      - mmarq 5y ago
        What happened in Eastern Europe was Russian imperialism. I was referring to Cuba, Vietnam, several African communist regimes, etc…
- sofixa 5y ago
  Western or Eastern, Japan occupied Indochina for a few years during WW2, and Ho Chi Minh rose as a big resistance leader opposing them. However for the rest you're on point. South Vietnam was a fake regime propped up by the French initially and then the US, had no legitimacy, wasn't democratic ( which could have been a saving grace for it) and was in US-backed violation of the Geneva conference. That's not to say there weren't anti-communists in Vietnam, they were just a small minority (Ho Chi Minh had very strong support in the North, which was more populous).
  - refurb 5y ago
    South Vietnam was certainly not “fake”. Not any more “fake” than any other country. It wasn’t a democracy but neither was the north. And the North also violated numerous treaties including the one where the US pulled out all troops and North agreed to stop further infiltration. The communists certainly had strong support in the North (they had secured power and purged any opposing elements, including within their party). They also had support in the south, but were forced to infiltrate hundreds of thousands over the war to sustain a fighting force as they weren’t able to grow it organically in the South (also shown during the 1968 Tet Offensive where no population center or military unit “flipped” to the communist side).
    - trasz 5y ago
      This is pure whataboutism.
      - refurb 5y ago
        Are my facts incorrect? If so, please call them out. OP said the North was “right” because the South was X,Y,Z. I countered with “the North also did X,Y,Z.”, thus countering their claims that the North was somehow “more pure or righteous”. Maybe it is whataboutism, but that seems appropriate when someone is trying to claim superiority to another?
        trasz 5y ago
- refurb 5y ago
  This is the story that is told, but one can’t avoid the similarity between the South’s alliance with the US, AUS, NZ, Korea and the North’s with the USSR and China (which had many soldier stationed there). Without material support the USSR and China provided, the North never could have won the war. There was no “rightful” liberation. It was a civil war in its essence with two opposing groups of Vietnamese fighting for control of a fractured post-colonial state, with plenty of foreign interference/assistance during the whole thing. In the end the North did a better job (through both smart politics, good PR and internal support/oppression of opposition).
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > This is the story that is told, but one can’t avoid the similarity between the South’s alliance with the US, AUS, NZ, Korea and the North’s with the USSR and China (which had many soldier stationed there). Without material support the USSR and China provided, the North never could have won the war The difference is that with no outside meddling and support, South Vietnam wouldn't have existed or would have existed very briefly until a Communist electoral victory of the whole country. Without the US in Vietnamese affair, there is no North-South war.
    - refurb 5y ago
      I’d have to disagree on the popular vote. By the time of the proposed election, the Communists had complete control of the Northern population. There was no “free” vote for unification - any more than there would be a free vote in Vietnam today. And the US didn’t get significantly involved (beyond material support for the French) in Vietnam until the early 1960’s with the help of military advisors. The build up didn’t start until around ‘65 when it was apparent the South would collapse (through a combination of communist subversion but also a lot of in fighting) The South existed as an independent state for a few years - barely, I would agree. But it existed.
      - the_af 5y ago
        The South never existed without US backing. It was a made up thing, without popular support, ruled by successive dictatorships (some even had to be toppled with the ok of the US, so terrible they were). It's not your right to decide whether people have free will or not. It's their call. "Deciding" for them is called colonialism. Ho Chi Minh had huge popular support; precisely what the US feared. PS: before the US fucked things up, Ho Chi Minh even looked up to them and fully expected their support against the French. That's how bad the US fucked up.
- clavicat 5y ago
- bingohbangoh 5y ago
  These claims act as if the Vietnamese weren't themselves divided on communism or that the USSR wasn't running propaganda campaigns to convince everybody they were in the moral right.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

In this particular case, the North was in the right. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were just one more occupier in a long line of Western occupiers. And even though the Americans didn't intend to become occupiers, that's ultimately what happened (a theme that's repeated itself many times). The Americans and the Vietnamese were fighting different wars with each other. So the North pushed out the occupiers and liberated their country.

elurg 5y ago
Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Self rule, just like you'd think. The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.
  - donquichotte 5y ago
    What a beautifully deep thought. Looking at it this way, e.g. supporting ideologies as a means to an end, helps understanding a lot of idiosyncracies in the world, past and present.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    To really underline this, one should read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. Ho Chi Mihn greatly admired many things about the US and so it starts with a quote from the US Declaration of Independence, before it talks about the French revolution, and then attacks the French colonial rule.
    - refurb 5y ago
      I mean sure, but look at the country today. Apparently they didn’t admire it that much.
      - the_af 5y ago
        They had a bloody war with the US after they sided with their colonial oppressors and lost thousands of people to that war; that might have something to do with it. 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.
        refurb 5y ago
        Wait, what? Because they had a bloody war they couldn’t actually deliver what they promised? 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”?
        nzmsv 5y ago
        Americans lost two skyscrapers and still talk every year about how the country was scarred. Yes, it was terrible, but imagine a country literally burned by fire from the sky, and future generations continuing to suffer through birth defects. The sheer magnitude of the suffering perpetuated in the name of "freedom" and proper values is staggering. You and people like you are sickening.
        the_af 5y ago
        > Wait, what? Because they had a bloody war they couldn’t actually deliver what they promised? 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.
  - _0ffh 5y ago
    The way I heard the story is more like they mostly held back and rebuilt their numbers while the Kuomintang was left doing most of the actual kicking on it's own.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      That's unfair to the Chinese communists. They fought a different type of war against the Japanese, a guerrilla one, attacking Japanese supply, isolated locations, etc. In terms of pure numbers of men they certainly contributed less than the Kuomintang, but in terms of overall impact it's close to impossible to say.
  - elurg 5y ago
    > Self rule, just like you'd think. Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? It makes sense if you claim to fight the Americans because they're evil capitalists but Vietnam turned around to adopt chinese-style reforms and is now mostly friendly towards the US. > The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. The CCP is in power because they defeated the KMT, but decades later they adopted capitalism and today justify their rule through nationalism. What's the point of a civil war if you eventually end up adopting most of the other side's policies?
    - the_af 5y ago
      > Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? Yes. > and is now mostly friendly towards the US. Independence works like that. When you let a country decide instead of forcing by military power, they might even choose to like you -- or at least, not hate you. The US and Britain are friends and allies in modern times, after all.
- mmarq 5y ago
  In fact all communist revolutions, bar the Russian, were nationalist/liberation revolutions or at least started like that. Then they became oppressive regimes (and that was the point since the beginning, maybe).
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    I hope that you do not count what happened in most Eastern European countries as communist or liberation revolutions. There the communists were installed to power by the invading Russian army, even if false revolutionary and liberation histories were made up after the facts. The few places where there were indeed communists fighting for liberation, i.e. Tito in Yugoslavia or Enver Hoxha in Albania, so they had some legitimacy, were precisely the places which later escaped from being under strict Russian control. For Yugoslavia and Albania, what you say seems to apply.
    - mmarq 5y ago
      What happened in Eastern Europe was Russian imperialism. I was referring to Cuba, Vietnam, several African communist regimes, etc…
sofixa 5y ago
Western or Eastern, Japan occupied Indochina for a few years during WW2, and Ho Chi Minh rose as a big resistance leader opposing them. However for the rest you're on point. South Vietnam was a fake regime propped up by the French initially and then the US, had no legitimacy, wasn't democratic ( which could have been a saving grace for it) and was in US-backed violation of the Geneva conference. That's not to say there weren't anti-communists in Vietnam, they were just a small minority (Ho Chi Minh had very strong support in the North, which was more populous).
- refurb 5y ago
  South Vietnam was certainly not “fake”. Not any more “fake” than any other country. It wasn’t a democracy but neither was the north. And the North also violated numerous treaties including the one where the US pulled out all troops and North agreed to stop further infiltration. The communists certainly had strong support in the North (they had secured power and purged any opposing elements, including within their party). They also had support in the south, but were forced to infiltrate hundreds of thousands over the war to sustain a fighting force as they weren’t able to grow it organically in the South (also shown during the 1968 Tet Offensive where no population center or military unit “flipped” to the communist side).
  - trasz 5y ago
    This is pure whataboutism.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Are my facts incorrect? If so, please call them out. OP said the North was “right” because the South was X,Y,Z. I countered with “the North also did X,Y,Z.”, thus countering their claims that the North was somehow “more pure or righteous”. Maybe it is whataboutism, but that seems appropriate when someone is trying to claim superiority to another?
      - trasz 5y ago
refurb 5y ago
This is the story that is told, but one can’t avoid the similarity between the South’s alliance with the US, AUS, NZ, Korea and the North’s with the USSR and China (which had many soldier stationed there). Without material support the USSR and China provided, the North never could have won the war. There was no “rightful” liberation. It was a civil war in its essence with two opposing groups of Vietnamese fighting for control of a fractured post-colonial state, with plenty of foreign interference/assistance during the whole thing. In the end the North did a better job (through both smart politics, good PR and internal support/oppression of opposition).
- sofixa 5y ago
  > This is the story that is told, but one can’t avoid the similarity between the South’s alliance with the US, AUS, NZ, Korea and the North’s with the USSR and China (which had many soldier stationed there). Without material support the USSR and China provided, the North never could have won the war The difference is that with no outside meddling and support, South Vietnam wouldn't have existed or would have existed very briefly until a Communist electoral victory of the whole country. Without the US in Vietnamese affair, there is no North-South war.
  - refurb 5y ago
    I’d have to disagree on the popular vote. By the time of the proposed election, the Communists had complete control of the Northern population. There was no “free” vote for unification - any more than there would be a free vote in Vietnam today. And the US didn’t get significantly involved (beyond material support for the French) in Vietnam until the early 1960’s with the help of military advisors. The build up didn’t start until around ‘65 when it was apparent the South would collapse (through a combination of communist subversion but also a lot of in fighting) The South existed as an independent state for a few years - barely, I would agree. But it existed.
    - the_af 5y ago
      The South never existed without US backing. It was a made up thing, without popular support, ruled by successive dictatorships (some even had to be toppled with the ok of the US, so terrible they were). It's not your right to decide whether people have free will or not. It's their call. "Deciding" for them is called colonialism. Ho Chi Minh had huge popular support; precisely what the US feared. PS: before the US fucked things up, Ho Chi Minh even looked up to them and fully expected their support against the French. That's how bad the US fucked up.
clavicat 5y ago
bingohbangoh 5y ago
These claims act as if the Vietnamese weren't themselves divided on communism or that the USSR wasn't running propaganda campaigns to convince everybody they were in the moral right.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]