3 ms·

South Vietnam never had a functioning government.

refurb 4y ago
Not really true unless your standard is Western style democracy. And I can't think of too many developing countries who went from dictatorship to full democracy while fighting an insurgency/superpower proxy war. South Korea, Taiwan were both dictatorships for decades after the fighting ended. The peak of the Southern government was '71-72, prior to the Easter Offensive by the North. The Tet Offensive had destroyed the Viet Cong in the South (needed to be entirely back filled by the Northern troops), so at that point the RVN had full control over much of the South. The fighting had died down to the point that work on social programs like land reform, actually install competent provincial leaders, etc had an opportunity to improve the life of the average citizens in the countryside (the major cities saw little violence over the war with the exception of Tet and a few other attacks). RVN wasn't a democracy by Western standards, but it was a government that could at least provide security, development and work towards building up the country. When the Eastern Offensive happened, the US was limited to air power (all troops had left by ‘73 but the drawdowns started in ‘69), and the ARVN made a good showing at the battle of An Loc. They were capable of being an effective fighting force but needed US support to counter the USSR and Chinese support the North was getting. After '72, Congress cut off all aid, Nixon was in no position to force things otherwise (i.e. Watergate) and the writing was on the wall since the South didn't even have enough gasoline for their military vehicles. The South was a corrupt government with plenty of nepotism and stealing of US funds, but if you visit Vietnam today you’d realize not much has changed on that end.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  It's true in the sense that no government in South Vietnam had sufficient domestic support to stand on its own. For that matter, none had sufficient support to stand with American aid, with coup after coup until the US left. Imagine if instead of being red-baited into escalating the conflict in Vietnam, LBJ had directed the money to his Great Society programs. Generational poverty would have been drastically reduced, more people would be educated, there would be less crime, and we would have more and better science. There would be less government suspicion, enabling the federal government to attract more top tier talent, leading to a more effective government. That's the real travesty. Even if South Vietnam got a supported non-communist government, it wouldn't have gotten the financial and technological support that South Korea got from Japan, so chasil's vision would not have happened.
  - refurb 4y ago
    America left in ‘73 and the last coup was in ‘63. There was no “coup after coup until America left”. And LBJ did offer a Great Society funding scheme to the North and it was rejected as “trickery”.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      It was rejected as trickery because the escalation in Vietnam was unfunded. Johnson knew that he had to raise taxes to continue the fight in Vietnam and implement Great Society, but he was tricked into believing that the government in South Vietnam was legitimate and would be welcomed as the true government of Vietnam with just a little help. When that turned out not to be the case, he failed to make the tradeoff explicit. Had it been explicit, the correct choice would be obvious.

Not really true unless your standard is Western style democracy. And I can't think of too many developing countries who went from dictatorship to full democracy while fighting an insurgency/superpower proxy war. South Korea, Taiwan were both dictatorships for decades after the fighting ended. The peak of the Southern government was '71-72, prior to the Easter Offensive by the North. The Tet Offensive had destroyed the Viet Cong in the South (needed to be entirely back filled by the Northern troops), so at that point the RVN had full control over much of the South. The fighting had died down to the point that work on social programs like land reform, actually install competent provincial leaders, etc had an opportunity to improve the life of the average citizens in the countryside (the major cities saw little violence over the war with the exception of Tet and a few other attacks). RVN wasn't a democracy by Western standards, but it was a government that could at least provide security, development and work towards building up the country. When the Eastern Offensive happened, the US was limited to air power (all troops had left by ‘73 but the drawdowns started in ‘69), and the ARVN made a good showing at the battle of An Loc. They were capable of being an effective fighting force but needed US support to counter the USSR and Chinese support the North was getting. After '72, Congress cut off all aid, Nixon was in no position to force things otherwise (i.e. Watergate) and the writing was on the wall since the South didn't even have enough gasoline for their military vehicles. The South was a corrupt government with plenty of nepotism and stealing of US funds, but if you visit Vietnam today you’d realize not much has changed on that end.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
It's true in the sense that no government in South Vietnam had sufficient domestic support to stand on its own. For that matter, none had sufficient support to stand with American aid, with coup after coup until the US left. Imagine if instead of being red-baited into escalating the conflict in Vietnam, LBJ had directed the money to his Great Society programs. Generational poverty would have been drastically reduced, more people would be educated, there would be less crime, and we would have more and better science. There would be less government suspicion, enabling the federal government to attract more top tier talent, leading to a more effective government. That's the real travesty. Even if South Vietnam got a supported non-communist government, it wouldn't have gotten the financial and technological support that South Korea got from Japan, so chasil's vision would not have happened.
- refurb 4y ago
  America left in ‘73 and the last coup was in ‘63. There was no “coup after coup until America left”. And LBJ did offer a Great Society funding scheme to the North and it was rejected as “trickery”.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    It was rejected as trickery because the escalation in Vietnam was unfunded. Johnson knew that he had to raise taxes to continue the fight in Vietnam and implement Great Society, but he was tricked into believing that the government in South Vietnam was legitimate and would be welcomed as the true government of Vietnam with just a little help. When that turned out not to be the case, he failed to make the tradeoff explicit. Had it been explicit, the correct choice would be obvious.