7 ms·

This is the sort of distorting of history the article speaks about. Vietnam was invaded by the French in the 1800 and turned into a colony. That colony was lost

by moksly 5y ago

This is the sort of distorting of history the article speaks about. Vietnam was invaded by the French in the 1800 and turned into a colony. That colony was lost, and then semi-regained over the course of WW2 and the years following. When the French lost and withdrew, America invaded and was subsequently beaten. This is not a defence of China or Russia, look at how they are invading Tibet and the Ukraine, but the Vietnamese people weren’t invaded by China or the USSR, they were invaded by the US. South-Vietnam was an American fabrication during its invasion following the post French-Indonesian-war, because the Vietnamese people had a government in Hanoi, the US simply didn’t like it.

refurb 5y ago
No, you’re distorting history. After the communist victory at Dien Bien Phu, the French negotiated a peace (without much choice) that forced them to give up the North (where the communists were strongest). The French slowly disengaged from the South over the next decade leaving a fragile Vietnamese government in the South that had no interest in joining the communists in the North (1 million fled during partition). The US did back a fractured, unstable government in the South in order to contain communism - I’m not arguing that. But to claim that the country, one that lasted 20 years, wasn’t “real” is just silly. It’s like saying South Korea isn’t real because the UN backs it’s security and the communists had significant support prior to partition.
- the_af 5y ago
  The US propped up a dictatorship in the South and canceled free elections because they knew Ho Chi Minh would win. This is a matter of recorded fact, not a conspiracy theory. They had also been supporting the French with materiel and even limited numbers of advisors during the First Indochina War. There was a war of national liberation against a colonial power, and the US sided with the colonial power.
  - refurb 5y ago
    This is false. Of course Ho Chi Minh would win - there were no free elections in the North (100% of votes went for him!) and substantial support in the South. I wouldn’t call that a fair and free election. Yes, and I agree the US supported the French materially and with advisors. But South Vietnam was no longer a colonial power. The French were gone and the Vietnamese called the shots (not without foreign influence, I agree, but similar to the USSR and China influence in the North - you pay the bills you get a say). But none of that infers the South wasn’t a real country.
    - the_af 5y ago
      > Of course Ho Chi Minh would win - there were no free elections in the North (100% of votes went for him!) and substantial support in the South. I wouldn’t call that a fair and free election. False. The US own internal documents stated they believed Ho Chi Minh held enormous popular support, especially in the countryside. They cancelled the elections and instead propped up a bloody dictatorship. Nothing natural about the South, it was completely artificial, incompetent, and repressive.
      - PicassoCTs 5y ago
        The original Viet Minh was a anti-colonial organization, fighting against japan and france, in WW2 - ironically with US-Advisors and taking the US- as a example for a successful liberation from european colonial powers. After the war ended, the us- switched sides and dumped them. They then went and picked the next-best set of allies - which was russia/china. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940%E2%80%931946_in_French_Indochina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940%E2%80%931946_in_French_In...
      - refurb 5y ago
        Oh sure, he had a lot of support. But it was entirely clear the North was not going to allow any free vote. They had already purged any opposition long ago. So are you arguing that South Korea is a “completely artificial, incompetent and repressive” country? It was also a dictatorship after the war for about 20 years. But Vietnam still is today after 50.
- moksly 5y ago
  English is not my first language so maybe fabrication is the wrong word? I didn’t mean fabrication as in it didn’t exist, but that it wouldn’t have existed without the US.

by moksly 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

No, you’re distorting history. After the communist victory at Dien Bien Phu, the French negotiated a peace (without much choice) that forced them to give up the North (where the communists were strongest). The French slowly disengaged from the South over the next decade leaving a fragile Vietnamese government in the South that had no interest in joining the communists in the North (1 million fled during partition). The US did back a fractured, unstable government in the South in order to contain communism - I’m not arguing that. But to claim that the country, one that lasted 20 years, wasn’t “real” is just silly. It’s like saying South Korea isn’t real because the UN backs it’s security and the communists had significant support prior to partition.

the_af 5y ago
The US propped up a dictatorship in the South and canceled free elections because they knew Ho Chi Minh would win. This is a matter of recorded fact, not a conspiracy theory. They had also been supporting the French with materiel and even limited numbers of advisors during the First Indochina War. There was a war of national liberation against a colonial power, and the US sided with the colonial power.
- refurb 5y ago
  This is false. Of course Ho Chi Minh would win - there were no free elections in the North (100% of votes went for him!) and substantial support in the South. I wouldn’t call that a fair and free election. Yes, and I agree the US supported the French materially and with advisors. But South Vietnam was no longer a colonial power. The French were gone and the Vietnamese called the shots (not without foreign influence, I agree, but similar to the USSR and China influence in the North - you pay the bills you get a say). But none of that infers the South wasn’t a real country.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > Of course Ho Chi Minh would win - there were no free elections in the North (100% of votes went for him!) and substantial support in the South. I wouldn’t call that a fair and free election. False. The US own internal documents stated they believed Ho Chi Minh held enormous popular support, especially in the countryside. They cancelled the elections and instead propped up a bloody dictatorship. Nothing natural about the South, it was completely artificial, incompetent, and repressive.
    - PicassoCTs 5y ago
      The original Viet Minh was a anti-colonial organization, fighting against japan and france, in WW2 - ironically with US-Advisors and taking the US- as a example for a successful liberation from european colonial powers. After the war ended, the us- switched sides and dumped them. They then went and picked the next-best set of allies - which was russia/china. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940%E2%80%931946_in_French_Indochina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940%E2%80%931946_in_French_In...
    - refurb 5y ago
      Oh sure, he had a lot of support. But it was entirely clear the North was not going to allow any free vote. They had already purged any opposition long ago. So are you arguing that South Korea is a “completely artificial, incompetent and repressive” country? It was also a dictatorship after the war for about 20 years. But Vietnam still is today after 50.
moksly 5y ago
English is not my first language so maybe fabrication is the wrong word? I didn’t mean fabrication as in it didn’t exist, but that it wouldn’t have existed without the US.