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

[ComradeH]

I guess no invasion of South Vietnam was truly needed.

Only if the US actually signed and honored/followed the Geneva Accord of 1954. Both of which did not happen. It is abundantly clear by 1956 that the US preferred shitting on international laws, disrespecting local wishes, and risking escalations. All in the name of "Domino Theory" (or supremacy of the US, or freedom and democracy, or liberty, or something like that)

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.

1. The US and Saigon regime still had the edge in manpower and force amplifier. And even "a better mobilisation system" is debatable
2. Fair enough. Though I'd phrase it somewhere along the line of "capable of uniting different ideas into the same narrative". Though I believe the idea of "one for all" is too foreign for western people
3. The US bombings, naval raids, and SpecOp deployment proved otherwise
4. Not all the time, and they are not always operating at efficiency. The US attacks work sufficiently well (not enough to break and cut the Trail, but enough to disrupt and force us to adapt)
5. This is the result, not the cause

 

[Cuirassier]

The US and Saigon regime still had the edge in manpower and force amplifier. And even "a better mobilisation system" is debatable

Uh, where was America in 1975?

The US bombings, naval raids, and SpecOp deployment proved otherwise

Concerted US bombing only happened once Nixon came to power.

Only if the US actually signed and honored/followed the Geneva Accord of 1954.

US opinion about the Geneva Accords was irrelevant because Diem was the one that mattered. He had refused to adhere by treaties signed by his predecessor under French influence.

Not to mention the accords were dead-on-arrival.

It is abundantly clear by 1956 that the US preferred shitting on international laws, disrespecting local wishes

The irony is too strong.

 

[ComradeH]

Uh, where was America in 1975?

I never say in 1975, I look at it from 1954 to 1975. Probably begin in 1950, when the US involvement began

Concerted US bombing only happened once Nixon came to power.

Began in 1965 with Rolling Thunder. The SpecOp began earlier, and intelligence definitely took place within 1964 (how the "Incident" of Gulf of Tonkin began)

US opinion about the Geneva Accords was irrelevant because Diem was the one that mattered. He had refused to adhere by treaties signed by his predecessor under French influence.

Diem's referendum was in 1955, after the Geneva Accord. The head of state at this point is still the (puppet) Emperor Bao Dai.

The irony is too strong.

Clearly, the US ignores the local wishes that 80% of Vietnamese would elect Ho Chi Minh, a confirmed communist/nationalist. So they did not sign the Accord and use it as a legal cover for future warfare in Viet nam.

 

[Cuirassier]

I never say in 1975, I look at it from 1954 to 1975

The war was decided in 1975.

Began in 1965 with Rolling Thunder.

A limited bombing campaign. Compare tonnage dropped in different cases. Johnson was always worried about escalating.

The SpecOp began earlier, and intelligence definitely took place within 1964 (how the "Incident" of Gulf of Tonkin began

Minor damage. They weren't done to break North Vietnam's back.

Diem's referendum was in 1955, after the Geneva Accord. The head of state at this point is still the (puppet) Emperor Bao Dai.

He would be the only one who could have put it into practice. Never mind the Geneva Accords were dead-on-arrival.

Clearly, the US ignores the local wishes that 80% of Vietnamese would elect Ho Chi Minh,

The irony of this coming from a state that never bothered with real elections.
That 80% quote also has no real basis.

 

[Sam R.]

Neh. It took into 1976 for the VWP(n) to break the independent political capacities of the PRG and VWP(s).

 

[Fulton 44]

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...

Japanese occupation in WW2 and earlier centuries of Chinese occupation.

 

[Zincvit]

Japanese occupation in WW2 and earlier centuries of Chinese occupation.

Nah, Continuous Chinese occupation ended after 939 AD. The Ming only managed to hold the country for about 20 years (1407-1427) before Le Loi kicked them out.

 

[marathag]

Japanese occupation in WW2 and earlier centuries of Chinese occupation.

Chinese era ended in the 15thC
From then til 1778, you had rival powers in the Trinh Lords in the North, and Nguyen Lords in the South(Todays Central Vietnam), and in the far South, what was left of the shattered Cham Kingdoms and the Khmer to the SW.
This was the main 'Civil War' era in the 17thC
After that, the South expanded into Cambodian territory along the Mekong River and took over the Cham.
The South then had a peasant uprising, and the Northern Trinh took advantage becoming allied, eliminating the Nguyen's from power. Most of the Nguyen Family were executed, but not all.
Enter France, and Siam, new allies for Nguyen Ahn.

Meanwhile, the Trinh Lords were having problems with their allies of convenience, the Tay Son, and lost to them.

Nguyen Ahn with his new backers, was able to win over the Tay Son, and unify the Country, and had Laos and Cambodia as tributaries, and indecisive wars with Siam.
A succession crisis let the French take control in the 1880s.
Roughly 80 years of unified country before screwed by the French

 

[CastIron]

Here's a good Reddit post on the subject.
TL;DR for the relevant stuff to the thread:

• South Vietnam was an American invention to have an anti-Communist regime in decolonized Indochina, and poured a lot of resources into the creation of the state, even before putting troops on the ground. Most of this went to building up the ARVN.
• The US tried to legitimize South Vietnam through warfare, instead of dealing with the disintegration of South Vietnamese politics and the political system.
• Guerrilla Warfare was actually expected, and the US was avoiding another Korea by not directly invading the North, but the bombings that the Vietnam War is infamous for just drove people further away from Saigon.

 

[Cuirassier]

Here's a good Reddit post on the subject.

That post is itself full of badhistory.

• The US tried to legitimize South Vietnam through warfare, instead of dealing with the disintegration of South Vietnamese politics and the political system.

How was the US supposed to do that?

 

[GauchoBadger]

That post is itself full of badhistory.

Care to elaborate? It cites ten academic sources...

That 80% quote also has no real basis.

And were there any other candidates that could have sufficiently challenged Ho as to deny him victory? Almost all the other national factions except maybe the VNQDD had been in cahoots with the French and were thus quite unpopular, i have serious doubts as to the possibility of them being more liked than you make them out to be.
Also, was there any popular sentiment for a separation between south and north in Vietnam besides maybe the Cham and Khmer minorities?

 

[Zincvit]

Chinese era ended in the 15thC
From then til 1778, you had rival powers in the Trinh Lords in the North, and Nguyen Lords in the South(Todays Central Vietnam), and in the far South, what was left of the shattered Cham Kingdoms and the Khmer to the SW.
This was the main 'Civil War' era in the 17thC
After that, the South expanded into Cambodian territory along the Mekong River and took over the Cham.
The South then had a peasant uprising, and the Northern Trinh took advantage becoming allied, eliminating the Nguyen's from power. Most of the Nguyen Family were executed, but not all.
Enter France, and Siam, new allies for Nguyen Ahn.

Meanwhile, the Trinh Lords were having problems with their allies of convenience, the Tay Son, and lost to them.

Nguyen Ahn with his new backers, was able to win over the Tay Son, and unify the Country, and had Laos and Cambodia as tributaries, and indecisive wars with Siam.
A succession crisis let the French take control in the 1880s.
Roughly 80 years of unified country before screwed by the French

Nope the Cham were mainly located in Central Vietnam( I know that you're referingo he Cham remants, but to us Vietnamese, the far south is the Mekong Delta). By 1778, the Nguyễn has seized control over the entirety of the Western Mekong Delta (Known to the Khmer as Khmer Krom). Secondly, the Last Cham city state was annihilated by Minh Mang (Second Emperor of Vietnam) in 1832. Thirdly, there are no mention that the Tay Son and Trinh were allied with each other:
(Extract from Vietnamese Wikipedia)
Since the fighting in 1672 , the Trinh and Nguyen lords ended the conflict, taking the Gianh river as the boundary to divide Dai Viet into Dang Trong and Dang Ngoai .

One hundred years later, the Tay Son brothers led by Nguyen Nhac rebelled against the Nguyen family. Realizing that the internal situation in Dang Trong was a male opportunity to destroy the Nguyen family, in 1774, Trinh Sam in Dang Ngoai decided to send a large army to the south. In early 1775, Trinh army invaded Phu Xuan , Lord Nguyen Phuc Thuan fled to the south. The leader of Tay Son Nguyen Nhac also sent troops from Quy Nhon to attack Quang Nam . The two sides clashed at the battle of Cam Sa , the Trinh army prevailed. Nguyen Nhac surrendered and asked fight the Nguyen.

His yeld accepted by Lord Trinh, Nguyen Nhac gathered forces to defeat Lord Nguyen, occupying the entire territory from Quang Nam to the end of the South. In 1778 , after killing two Nguyen Lords, Nguyen Nhac claiming to be king, take the name Thai Duc. Trinh Sam knew about it but did not ask. In 1782, Trinh Sam died and his two sons, Trinh Khai and Trinh Can, competed as lords. Trinh Khai killed Trinh Can's aide Hoang Dinh Bao (young), took the throne. The servant of Dinh Bao, Nguyen Huu Chinh, fled to the south to surrender to Tay Son.

In 1785, the Tây Sơn army defeated the Siamese army invoked by Nguyễn Anh at the Battle of Rạch Gầm-Xoài Mút . Nguyen Anh had to flee exile to Siam. Nguyen Nhac owned the entire southern central and southern regions, beginning prepare for an invasion of the north.
This seems like just a truce more than an alliance.

Chiến tranh Tây Sơn – Chúa Trịnh – Wikipedia tiếng Việt

vi.wikipedia.org

 

[Cuirassier]

Care to elaborate?

1. Treating Geneva Accords as an actual treaty when preconditions were never met.
2. Ho Chi Minh wasn't a Bolshevik, but he was always a true believer communist.
3. South Vietnam being an American creation.
4. That nonsense about Suharto being some sort of inspiration.
The references given are quite weak. Turse, Karnow, Chomsky, Hastings are hardly the aouthors you want if you were criticizing somebody else.

 

[Zincvit]

1. Treating Geneva Accords as an actual treaty when preconditions were never met.
2. Ho Chi Minh wasn't a Bolshevik, but he was always a true believer communist.
3. South Vietnam being an American creation.
4. That nonsense about Suharto being some sort of inspiration.
The references given are all quite weak. Turse, Karnow, Chomsky, Hastings are hardly the aouthors you want if you were criticizing somebody else.

To be honest, South Vietnam was merely the succesor state to the "State of Vietnam" (a French puppet). And isn't Bolshevik a synonym with Communist?

 

[Cuirassier]

. And isn't Bolshevik a synonym with Communist?

No.

South Vietnam was merely the succesor state to the "State of Vietnam" (a French puppet).

And? Being a "puppet" also ignores internal politics. By the time Diem launched his coup French influence had diminished a lot.

Care to elaborate? It cites ten academic sources...

Turse, Chomsky, Karnow, Fall are not academic sources.

 

[GauchoBadger]

1. Treating Geneva Accords as an actual treaty when preconditions were never met.

The preconditions were not met because of American meddling in the southern political scene. What was at stake here were not formal definitions of treaties, but the very PR weight of the United States -- how are you supposed to say you defend "democracy" and "fair diplomacy" if what you're doing is the opposite of it in countries you have an interest in, and everyone can see it?

2. Ho Chi Minh wasn't a Bolshevik, but he was always a true believer communist.

And?
Ho Chih Minh was also a nationalist...

3. South Vietnam being an American creation.

I'll ask again, was there any significant popular sentiment in 1950's southern Vietnam for the creation of an independent state in the area?

 

[Zincvit]

No.

And? Being a "puppet" also ignores internal politics. By the time Diem launched his coup French influence had diminished a lot.

To be honest, I'm not really debating with you. Just presenting some facts. Shouldn't have use quotes though. And Diem's the reason why French is influence was diminished not before his rigged referendum to overthrow Bao Dai. French's influence was still omnipresent in South Vietnam:
Despite the end of French colonial rule, the French language still maintained a strong presence in South Vietnam where it was used in administration, education (especially at the secondary and higher levels), trade and diplomacy. The ruling elite population of South Vietnam was known to speak French as its primary language.

South Vietnam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cuirassier]

And Diem's the reason why French is influence was diminishing not before his rigged referendum to overthrow Bao Dai.

That isn't the feeling I got from Miller's book. By the end of the fighting France had run itself ragged and was forced to play nice with various power brokers.
With the US coming to prominence anybody would have undercut the French like DIem did.

I'll ask again, was there any significant popular sentiment in 1950's southern Vietnam for the creation of an independent state in the area?

How did the US make SV?

Ho Chih Minh was also a nationalist...

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I was criticising the badhistory post which ignored HCM's ideological roots with a throwaway comment.

how are you supposed to say you defend "democracy" and "fair diplomacy" if what you're doing is the opposite of it in countries you have an interest in, and everyone can see it?

Stop pushing your own words into my comments. Gaddis called the accords dead on arrival because neither side met its obligations.

 

[Zincvit]

That isn't the feeling I got from Miller's book. By the end of the fighting France had run itself ragged and was forced to play nice with various power brokers.
With the US coming to prominence anybody would have undercut the French like DIem did.

I'm talking about French's cultural influence. So I kind of misunderstood your point. That's also a big mistake on Diem's part. He's just lose a counterweight to American's influence in Vietnam.

 

[marathag]

This seems like just a truce more than an alliance.

Or even co-belligerents, like Finland and Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union