3 ms·

> It was a civil war in its essence with two opposing groups of Vietnamese fighting for control of a fractured post-colonial state It wasn't a civil war, not t

by the_af 5y ago

> It was a civil war in its essence with two opposing groups of Vietnamese fighting for control of a fractured post-colonial state It wasn't a civil war, not to begin with at least. The US installed a dictatorship in the South (the dictator they propped up was so bad they ended up greenlighting his removal and "accidental" assassination), with the promise of free elections. When predictions showed Ho Chi Minh would have won the elections in the South by a landslide, they simply cancelled the election. That's not Vietnamese vs Vietnamese, it's Vietnamese vs colonial power. In any colonial administration, people cozy with the colonial power will defend it and resent a change, of course.

refurb 5y ago
Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. The US never installed a government in the South. That was the French as a part of the ‘54 Treaty. And your comment about a “free and fair” election makes me laugh. What do you suppose the vote would have been in the North? 100%? Probably. Clearly a lot of Vietnamese opposed the communist regime. They lost, despite the support of the US. And the North won, with the support of China and the USSR. There is not “rightful” winner, just the winner.
- the_af 5y ago
  > Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. Brave words for someone going against the current consensus about the Vietnam war. Also, please avoid name calling. The US in effect propped up and backed the dictatorship. They also helped topple it and install successive and increasingly incompetent military dictatorships to replace it. Woo! > There is not “rightful” winner, just the winner. Nah, in the case of a national independence movement against colonial oppressors, there's a rightful winner. Their errors and failures are their own, but they were the right side in that war and the US was the wrong side.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Not sure what consensus you’re talking about? Are my facts incorrect? You’re saying the US installed a dictatorship in the South? Are you aware of the treaty in 1956 that created the partition? The US propped up a dictatorship in the South, I agree. And the North was a dictatorship propped up by the Chinese and USSR. The North was fortunate it had purged all opposition long ago so could focus on its insurgency in the South while the South had to deal with a fractured political landscape. I’m not sure how you could look at the last 60 years of dictatorship in Vietnam and say the “right” side won. I mean, the Vietnamese who risked their lives to flee probably disagree with you?
    - the_af 5y ago
      > The US propped up a dictatorship in the South, I agree. Good. > And the North was a dictatorship propped up by the Chinese and USSR No. The North was formed out of supporters of the anti colonial, nationalist side. Ho Chi Minh was a communist, but he was also a nationalist; he wasn't anybody's puppet. Just looking at Vietnam's difficult relationship with China should let you know it couldn't have been a "propped up by" sort of government. > I’m not sure how you could look at the last 60 years of dictatorship in Vietnam and say the “right” side won. Easy: the side fighting for independence against colonial oppressors is the right side. The US should understand this, it's allegedly one of their principles. Life in Vietnam is not that bad, you know. There are Americans living there, even. It's not the US right to choose other countries' form of government by force, anyway. I believe I've told you this multiple times already. > I mean, the Vietnamese who risked their lives to flee probably disagree with you? So? There were also collaborators with the French colonial rule. As was the case with British India; in every anticolonial struggle some locals have always opposed it. I cannot argue with some group of nameless Vietnamese anyway, but you seem to speak for them through some kind of magic...

by the_af 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. The US never installed a government in the South. That was the French as a part of the ‘54 Treaty. And your comment about a “free and fair” election makes me laugh. What do you suppose the vote would have been in the North? 100%? Probably. Clearly a lot of Vietnamese opposed the communist regime. They lost, despite the support of the US. And the North won, with the support of China and the USSR. There is not “rightful” winner, just the winner.

the_af 5y ago
> Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. Brave words for someone going against the current consensus about the Vietnam war. Also, please avoid name calling. The US in effect propped up and backed the dictatorship. They also helped topple it and install successive and increasingly incompetent military dictatorships to replace it. Woo! > There is not “rightful” winner, just the winner. Nah, in the case of a national independence movement against colonial oppressors, there's a rightful winner. Their errors and failures are their own, but they were the right side in that war and the US was the wrong side.
- refurb 5y ago
  Not sure what consensus you’re talking about? Are my facts incorrect? You’re saying the US installed a dictatorship in the South? Are you aware of the treaty in 1956 that created the partition? The US propped up a dictatorship in the South, I agree. And the North was a dictatorship propped up by the Chinese and USSR. The North was fortunate it had purged all opposition long ago so could focus on its insurgency in the South while the South had to deal with a fractured political landscape. I’m not sure how you could look at the last 60 years of dictatorship in Vietnam and say the “right” side won. I mean, the Vietnamese who risked their lives to flee probably disagree with you?
  - the_af 5y ago
    > The US propped up a dictatorship in the South, I agree. Good. > And the North was a dictatorship propped up by the Chinese and USSR No. The North was formed out of supporters of the anti colonial, nationalist side. Ho Chi Minh was a communist, but he was also a nationalist; he wasn't anybody's puppet. Just looking at Vietnam's difficult relationship with China should let you know it couldn't have been a "propped up by" sort of government. > I’m not sure how you could look at the last 60 years of dictatorship in Vietnam and say the “right” side won. Easy: the side fighting for independence against colonial oppressors is the right side. The US should understand this, it's allegedly one of their principles. Life in Vietnam is not that bad, you know. There are Americans living there, even. It's not the US right to choose other countries' form of government by force, anyway. I believe I've told you this multiple times already. > I mean, the Vietnamese who risked their lives to flee probably disagree with you? So? There were also collaborators with the French colonial rule. As was the case with British India; in every anticolonial struggle some locals have always opposed it. I cannot argue with some group of nameless Vietnamese anyway, but you seem to speak for them through some kind of magic...