As a Vietnamese, I fully agree with the US's involvement in Vietnam.

saigonforever said:
Encrusting, read the book "The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam" by Geoffrey D. T. Shaw. Trust me, it will dispell most of the myths and clarifies those two points.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would have supported Diệm's government, as I am a Catholic myself.
 
@saigonforever
1728965318712.jpeg

he won
 
@saigonforever
I agree with your main opinion on the subject however I don't agree with the usage of chemicals and other similar weapons during the war. Agent Orange is a ginormous example, it resulted in the birthing of several thousand deformed children, both Viet and American. Wordswordswords but I think you understand me.
Do you think Diem would have ended up winning the conflict without US involvement or was he doomed from the start?
 
drcobson said:
@saigonforever
I agree with your main opinion on the subject however I don't agree with the usage of chemicals and other similar weapons during the war. Agent Orange is a ginormous example, it resulted in the birthing of several thousand deformed children, both Viet and American. Wordswordswords but I think you understand me.
Do you think Diem would have ended up winning the conflict without US involvement or was he doomed from the start?
Click to expand...

He was not doomed from the start, most legal documents and public opinion affirmed this idea. Ngo Dinh Diem was no different than Ho Chi Minh, they were both respected Vietnamese nationalists, the only reason why one will hear from the latter is because that side won (insert Communist propaganda and brainwashing here). The thing is that Ngo Dinh Diem did not believe in communist revolution to achieve Vietnamese independence, further more, republicanism was already an ideology just as novel as socialism that was to take root when Vietnam was split in 1954 at the Geneva Accords.

I cannnot explain the entirety of Diem's presidency in one schlog post but I suggest searching up: "The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam" that thoroughly and truthfully explains the politics of a stauchly anti-communist, devout Catholic, and Vietnamese nationalist Diem, who at times, did not listen to Washington out of agitation of their insistence in South Vietnamese internal affairs. Most importantly, he was not a mere lackey of the Americans, but this would be unfortunately the fact that cost him his life when the CIA allowed the military to assassinate him in 1963. Just like South Korea, if they had zero military assistance, then they would easily crumble to Pyongyang in days because the heavy industry was in the North. The same applied to Vietnam, as Hanoi was the capital and heart of Vietnamese industry. South Vietnam was born out of war, and it needed a strong leader in order to train the young country's armed forces and eventually stabilize the new Republic. Democratization could come later, as it did in Taiwan or South Korea, winning the war was the most important. Those who bash the South Vietnamese government for not democratizing fast enough are hypocrites: did the North have any elections close to what the South had? The answer is a resounding no (even today as well!). Ngo Dinh Diem would have easily served as a strong leader like Park-Cheung Hee of Korea, and even Park had went many attempted assassinations. If HE was successfully killed, South Korea would not be where it is today. So to answer your question, Diem couldve won the war as most governments (with the minor exception of Thieu, though even HE was not as competent as Diem, but very worthy of respect for his effort) after his death were worried about coups rather that the VC insurgency, but American assisstance was also very integral to the war plan.
 
saigonforever said:
He was not doomed from the start, most legal documents and public opinion affirmed this idea. Ngo Dinh Diem was no different than Ho Chi Minh, they were both respected Vietnamese nationalists, the only reason why one will hear from the latter is because that side won (insert Communist propaganda and brainwashing here). The thing is that Ngo Dinh Diem did not believe in communist revolution to achieve Vietnamese independence, further more, republicanism was already an ideology just as novel as socialism that was to take root when Vietnam was split in 1954 at the Geneva Accords.

I cannnot explain the entirety of Diem's presidency in one schlog post but I suggest searching up: "The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam" that thoroughly and truthfully explains the politics of a stauchly anti-communist, devout Catholic, and Vietnamese nationalist Diem, who at times, did not listen to Washington out of agitation of their insistence in South Vietnamese internal affairs. Most importantly, he was not a mere lackey of the Americans, but this would be unfortunately the fact that cost him his life when the CIA allowed the military to assassinate him in 1963. Just like South Korea, if they had zero military assistance, then they would easily crumble to Pyongyang in days because the heavy industry was in the North. The same applied to Vietnam, as Hanoi was the capital and heart of Vietnamese industry. South Vietnam was born out of war, and it needed a strong leader in order to train the young country's armed forces and eventually stabilize the new Republic. Democratization could come later, as it did in Taiwan or South Korea, winning the war was the most important. Those who bash the South Vietnamese government for not democratizing fast enough are hypocrites: did the North have any elections close to what the South had? The answer is a resounding no (even today as well!). Ngo Dinh Diem would have easily served as a strong leader like Park-Cheung Hee of Korea, and even Park had went many attempted assassinations. If HE was successfully killed, South Korea would not be where it is today. So to answer your question, Diem couldve won the war as most governments (with the minor exception of Thieu, though even HE was not as competent as Diem, but very worthy of respect for his effort) after his death were worried about coups rather that the VC insurgency, but American assisstance was also very integral to the war plan.
Click to expand...
>inb4 words words words
 
drcobson said:
@saigonforever
I agree with your main opinion on the subject however I don't agree with the usage of chemicals and other similar weapons during the war. Agent Orange is a ginormous example, it resulted in the birthing of several thousand deformed children, both Viet and American. Wordswordswords but I think you understand me.
Do you think Diem would have ended up winning the conflict without US involvement or was he doomed from the start?
Click to expand...
Agent Orange is the unfortunate byproduct of the war. Just as was the Hue Massacre by the Communists. If we have to play the finger game and point to how many people were killed by which side, the winner would be the Communists.
 
Back
Top