2 ms·
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
by 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 agoAmerica 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 agoIt 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.