[the_af]

> 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]

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_In...

[refurb]

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.

[the_af]

> So are you arguing that South Korea

No, I'm arguing about Vietnam. Please try not to sidetrack the conversation.

Fact: Ho Chi Minh had huge popular support and would have won general elections, a fact the US didn't like at that stage and so they made sure it didn't happen. Instead, they propped up one of the most brutal dictatorships in the region, one so bad they had to allow its removal and the assassination of their puppet dictator.

They also destroyed South Vietnam, killing villagers, poisoning the land and bombing the hell out of North Vietnam.

And they failed because they were foreign aggressors.

Fact: the US doesn't get to choose the form of government of other countries. When they try to do it by military force, they are invaders and aggressors.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, those are the facts.

[refurb]

Your facts are wrong. And I’m sorry you cant see the similarities between Korea and Vietnam. There was plenty of support for Kim Ill-Sung in South Korea as well, but there was plenty of opposition too.

The North was a brutal dictatorship propped up by China and the USSR.

The South was a brutal dictatorship propped up by the West.

Both had Vietnamese supporters. Again, to dismiss the South as not a real country is just twisting facts. It was a civil war between two Vietnamese factions and the South lost. Those are the facts.

The mythology the North has created around the war (just like every country does) is helped to keep its grip on power but is a gross oversimplification.

And you’re right, the US doesn’t get to choose which government a country has. But neither does Vietnam when it comes to Cambodia or Laos, but hey, they hasn’t stopped them!

[the_af]

> There was plenty of support for Kim Ill-Sung in South Korea as well, but there was plenty of opposition too.

Please stop trying to sidetrack the conversation.

> The North was a brutal dictatorship propped up by China and the USSR.

No, it was a nationalist anti colonial government that aimed at the reunification and independence of Vietnam.

> Both had Vietnamese supporters. Again, to dismiss the South as not a real country is just twisting facts

It was an artificial creation imposed upon the Vietnamese by external parties; hence not a real country.

> The mythology the North has created around the war

Oh, there is a mythology alright! There's a whole myth created about this war, mostly by the foreign country that fought it -- to devastating effect to both Vietnam and the invaders who fought in it -- and who claims to be freedom loving and is still trying to heal from the wounds and the nonsense the war it inflicted caused upon thousands. This mythology is necessary in order to reconcile their aspirations to being a beacon of freedom and the fact they acted on the side of colonial oppressors.

> But neither does Vietnam when it comes to Cambodia or Laos, but hey, they hasn’t stopped them

But we are not talking about that, are we? If we were, we could condemn Vietnam's interference with other countries. Regrettably, this was about Vietnam's own struggle for independence and US interference with said independence.

When the US was fighting for its own independence, that's good. When they were stopping and interfering with another country's, that's bad. The same country can act good and bad at times. This was a case when the US was bad.