How did North Vietnam win the civil war (American Phase)?

[CHKeeley]

So why the whataboutism is response? Obviously you don't want to talk about what the North was doing from 1946 to 1956, in the North.l, but really want to talk about the South.
Why is that?

Multiple times in this thread, someone has made the reasonable argument that lack of legitimacy was a big role in failure of South Vietnam, and every time you engaged in whataboutism by pointing to the murder of landlords, dissidents, and Catholics by North Vietnam. When I point out that there was also much of the very same failings in the South, you hide behind the shield of "whataboutism" and now seem to be intent on insisting I am... ignoring the crimes of North Vietnam??

I have no problem discussing the graves at Hue and the murder of Catholics and such as you've described, I haven't disputed anything you've said about it..

Every time someone has brought up violence and repression in the South, you've tried to deflect it to the North (and even when a user tried to explain they wasn't defending the excesses/murder, you literally accused them of crocodile tears with absolutely zero basis), so please excuse me if I am not exactly sympathetic to your arguments here. It's pretty blatantly obvious that you are just intent on pushing atrocities on one side to the forefront of the discussion in order to demonize the actions of North Vietnam and thus legitimize the South, while essentially refusing to acknowledge many of the violence and issues that led to lack of legitimacy in South Vietnam too. It's only further transparent with the political soapboxing with the weird strawman statements about what "Marxists say.." about the Venezuelan economic situation and... posting pictures of Cuban groceries? and other such things that have no relevance to the thread whatsoever.

I am taking issue with the cheerleading for South Vietnam and trying to make atrocities into winning an argument while at the same time managing to dodge and questions about the exact same repression and murder taking place in South Vietnam that was taking place in the North.

To make a parallel: "Obviously you don't want to talk about what the South was doing, in the South, but really want to talk about the North." It's pretty classic to just scream "logical fallacy" and then imply the person you are arguing with isn't acting in good faith and/or is somehow in support of some abstract other... You didn't even manage to address anything I said, you just quoted the first line, cried whataboutism again, and ignored everything else.

 

[marathag]

Most of the bombs were used against truck parks

One op, Commando Hunt in Laos, 75% Sorties against the Trail (which was a surfaced road network at this time) and Truck Parks, 10% against AAA sites, and the rest'other'.

So the Commando Hunt missions were destroying thousands of trucks, thousands of replacements were being shipped in from the Warsaw Pact.

US dropped around 12% bombs in the North, 48%in the South. 35% in Laos, and the rest in Cambodia. In the South, it was mostly Arc Light mission

 

[Fulton 44]

I think they won because they were able to convey a credible nationalist narrative - "this war has been and still is a war between our people and European intruders (together with their local puppets)". Our replacement of Diem reinforced this narrative. Nationalism is a very powerful force amount a people who have been oppressed by outsiders for hundreds of years.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

So why the whataboutism is response? Obviously you don't want to talk about what the North was doing from 1946 to 1956, but really want to talk about the South.
Why is that?

Multiple times in this thread, someone has made the reasonable argument that lack of legitimacy was a big role in failure of South Vietnam, and every time you engaged in whataboutism by pointing to the murder of landlords, dissidents, and Catholics by North Vietnam. When I point out that there was also much of the very same failings in the South, you hide behind the shield of "whataboutism" and now seem to be intent on insisting I am... ignoring the crimes of North Vietnam??

I have no problem discussing the graves at Hue and the murder of Catholics and such as you've described, I haven't disputed anything you've said about it..

Every time someone has brought up violence and repression in the South, you've tried to deflect it to the North (and even when a user tried to explain they wasn't defending the excesses/murder, you literally accused them of crocodile tears with absolutely zero basis), so please excuse me if I am not exactly sympathetic to your arguments here. It's pretty blatantly obvious that you are just intent on pushing atrocities on one side to the forefront of the discussion in order to demonize the actions of North Vietnam and thus legitimize the South, while essentially refusing to acknowledge many of the violence and issues that led to lack of legitimacy in South Vietnam too. It's only further transparent with the political soapboxing with the weird strawman statements about what "Marxists say.." about the Venezuelan economic situation and... posting pictures of Cuban groceries? and other such things that have no relevance to the thread whatsoever.

I am taking issue with the cheerleading for South Vietnam and trying to make atrocities into winning an argument while at the same time managing to dodge and questions about the exact same repression and murder taking place in South Vietnam that was taking place in the North.

To make a parallel: "Obviously you don't want to talk about what the South was doing, in the South, but really want to talk about the North." It's pretty classic to just scream "logical fallacy" and then imply the person you are arguing with isn't acting in good faith and/or is somehow in support of some abstract other... You didn't even manage to address anything I said, you just quoted the first line, cried whataboutism again, and ignored everything else.

What Ulyanovsk. Nobody's denying that the North did awful things, but one cannot deny the things done by the South Vietnamese regime either. At the very least, both sides were as bad as one another.

The main difference between the two...well, on the one hand, the North had a long 'pedigree' of resistance to colonial domination in its government, etc. The South, OTOH? Not got that same pedigree, propped up very blatantly by America, and they allowed American troops in-country to terrorise their own civilians (as well as doing plenty of terrorising of their own). So...easy to see why ordinary Vietnamese in the South might have had a feeling regarding grass being greener on the other side.

 

[marathag]

So...easy to see why ordinary Vietnamese in the South might have had a feeling regarding grass being greener on the other side.

Until Hue, anyway.
Then they saw how things were going to roll after 'freeing' them from the imperialistic running dogs.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

Until Hue, anyway.
Then they saw how things were going to roll after 'freeing' them from the imperialistic running dogs.

Sure, and that was an utter atrocity - no doubt about that. However, it also can't be denied that American and ARVN actions - though nowhere near the same scale - did a lot to alienate support from the southern regime.

While it doesn't tie into the reasons why the war was lost, it's also worth noting that probably one reason that the things North Vietnam did get skated over compared to the South/American actions is because, well, Vietnam in the era of doi moi has become fairly wealthy and successful (to the point that apparently, more than a few children/grandchildren of South Vietnamese who fled to America have moved back to Vietnam to pursue work opportunities). So it's easy to look at that, look at somewhere like Thailand which is American-backed and not doing so well, and...you get my drift.

 

[Rickshaw]

Canada has not been punished. They [Cuba]are Canada's 2nd largest export market in Central America, over a Billion CD.
Mexico is around half that amount.
They have not been punished either.

That was not what the US Government threatened...

 

[Rickshaw]

Over 600,000 left the North
Were they all forced out by the CIA?

A majority were Catholic, a majority would have exited because of the rumours and innuendo. Was there anything to fear? No. They were dealing, as you are, with a counter-factual situation. Which way would you jump? No, I can guess which way you'd have jumped from your previous posts...

 

[Rickshaw]

I think they won because they were able to convey a credible nationalist narrative - "this war has been and still is a war between our people and European intruders (together with their local puppets)". Our replacement of Diem reinforced this narrative. Nationalism is a very powerful force amount a people who have been oppressed by outsiders for hundreds of years.

French occupied Indo-China for approximately 100 years, no more. So who was occupying it before that? I'm not arguing about the response, I am arguing about the amount of time you've claimed...

 

[Sam R.]

Let’s talk about Han:Viet relations.

Let’s definitely not talk about Viet:Cham relations.

When the US or Koreans engaged in political massacres and murders they were viewed as foreign and unjust.

When the NFL/PRG, PLAF or PAVN engaged in political murders and massacres they were viewed as (on the whole) righteous of the nation and just. Obviously this didn’t go down well in tribal highlands or southern churches or with ethnic Chinese business networks. But it sold a fucking treat in Viet villages where it was often followed up with confiscation and redistribution.

it is almost as if nationalist imaginaries and political movements are more than capable of holding what would be hypocritical or contradictory views if you took out the names of ethnicities and replaced them with humans.

And the VWP played it to the hilt. I guess you could suggest that PRG media lost the war for The US…

 

[BigBlueBox]

1. The United States were fighting a conventional war while the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong were fighting a insurgency. One of the best ways to militarily crush a insurgency is to become ruthless. South Korea put down communist insurgencies by carrying out massacres of suspected Communists. The US was not willing to take the gloves off.

They actually did take the gloves off. It was called the Phoenix Program, and it wasn't enough.

3. South Vietnam had no leg to stand on, especially with Ngo Do Diem at the helm. His overthrow and execution just made things worse. Say nothing about his crazy wife.

He didn't have a wife. You are probably thinking of his sister-in-law. The bold part needs to be emphasized - it turns out civilian rule is preferable to a circular-firing squad military dictatorship even when the civilian is an inept strongman.

4. North Vietnam had a propaganda weapon in Ho Chi Minh, since he had been fighting for Vietnamese independence from France and Japan since the 1910s. Ngo Din Diem barely did anything of substance in his own campaign for Vietnamese independence. (Sidenote: Ho Chi Minh's Declaration of Vietnamese Independence quoted the US Declaration of Independence's opening stanza about all people being created equal)

Unfortunately for South Vietnam, all the anti-communists more nationalist cred than Diem were purged by both the French and Viet Minh or died in an airplane crash.

 

[Zincvit]

Unfortunately for South Vietnam, all the anti-communists more nationalist cred than Diem were purged by both the French and Viet Minh or died in an airplane crash.

The VNQDD stopped being a relevant force in Vietnamese Nationalism after the Yen Bai mutiny. France basically decapitated their whole leadership after that.

Unfortunately for South Vietnam, all the anti-communists more nationalist cred than Diem were purged by both the French and Viet Minh or died in an airplane crash.

There was another figure but due to his his pro Japanese sentiment, it might not be the right choice.

 

[marathag]

They actually did take the gloves off. It was called the Phoenix Program, and it wasn't enough.

Yet 1975 was a conventional Blitzkrieg, not an uprising of the people of Vietnam.

Between that terror, and the RF/PF Militias doing their job at long last, things were quiet enough that heavily armed convoys were no longer needed to travel on the National Highways in the Areas that the RVN held between 1971 and the collapse in 1975.
that was also in part from Thieu deciding to pull back from the initial PAVN probes in 1975, that became a rout that snowballed. Neither side expected this to occur that year

 

[ComradeH]

What civil war?

Vietnamese is only aware of these wars in the 20th century

• Resistance movements against French colonial (and at the end, Japanese)
• Resistance war against French occupation (heavily led/influenced by communist and nationalist)
• Resistance war against the US and her allies (widely known as "Vietnam War") (again, heavily led and influenced by communist, with a serious tint of nationalist)
• War against China
• War against Pol Pot

Which "civil war" are you talking about?

 

[Sarthak]

What civil war?

Vietnamese is only aware of these wars in the 20th century

• Resistance movements against French colonial (and at the end, Japanese)
• Resistance war against French occupation (heavily led/influenced by communist and nationalist)
• Resistance war against the US and her allies (widely known as "Vietnam War") (again, heavily led and influenced by communist, with a serious tint of nationalist)
• War against China
• War against Pol Pot

Which "civil war" are you talking about?

This. Psychology plays a huge part in war.

 

[ComradeH]

This. Psychology plays a huge part in war.

I vaguely recall reading some documents, saying that the farmers living in southern region of Viet Nam equal the American to the French. They are both "strange people", with white people commanding black people and other white people, along with a foreign spoken tongue. So, yeah, even the main narrative of history in today Viet Nam is that: the war against the US is simply the continuation of the war against France

 

[TastySpam]

There's a lot of political narrative on both sides that tries to explain who won the Vietnam War, but at the end of the day, North Vietnam won because it conquered South Vietnam between 1975-1976.

At the end of the day, it seems like incompetence and perfidy on the side of the USA. The ARVN planned on having overwhelming superiority in airpower in light of military aid promised to them by the US as part of the Vietnamization process - but the US failed to provide that in the aftermath of Watergate. And thus they lost.

All of the things about legitimacy and popularity played a role in the strength of the Vietcong and ejecting America out of the war - but that doesn't address how the PAVN defeated the ARVN in 1975

 

[ComradeH]

The ARVN planned on having overwhelming superiority in airpower in light of military aid promised to them by the US as part of the Vietnamization process - but the US failed to provide that in the aftermath of Watergate.

I'd like to provide a tibid on that. No official source (as in legal or declassified documentation).

Long Binh post is a position in Dong Nai (Viet Nam). After the war, the post (or to be more precisely, a big arse warehouse complex) is captured relatively intact. The weaponry inside was sufficient to fuel the gruelling 10 years of war against Pol Pot. So your point is somewhat moot - at the end of the war, RVN still has enough firepower and material for a conventional battle, one that if employed correctly, might stave off their death for a few years at least.

Of course, on the same point, there are also rumors that not all doors in Long Binh post have been opened. Some are still locked, and some have triggered their self-destruction mechanism.

Not in business, so I can neither confirm nor deny any statement

 

[Mosshadow]

What civil war?

Vietnamese is only aware of these wars in the 20th century

• Resistance movements against French colonial (and at the end, Japanese)
• Resistance war against French occupation (heavily led/influenced by communist and nationalist)
• Resistance war against the US and her allies (widely known as "Vietnam War") (again, heavily led and influenced by communist, with a serious tint of nationalist)
• War against China
• War against Pol Pot

Which "civil war" are you talking about?

I think the OP implies its the American part, but I edited it to make it clear.

 

[Cuirassier]

I am amused by certain posters attempts to pretend there was no "civil" war.
I guess no invasion of South Vietnam was truly needed.

As for "Buddhists" being persecuted by Diem, that is a misleading trope popularized by American journalists.
Modern scholarship disagrees that Diem was targeting "Buddhists" as a religious group. Jessica Chapman in her book describes the opposition (which she calls cauldron of resistance) as composed of several religious sects which resisted Diem's attempts to centralize power under himself.
His reasons for persecuting them were political.

North Vietnam won because
1. Its system of mobilisation was better.
2. It had liquidated any internal opposition (including within the party itself). Once the hardliners had decided on war no negotiated peace was possible.
3. Its territory was untouched by American military strength.
4. Its supply of munitions, equipment and food were kept open.
5. Its military proved itself good enough to annex the place by force.