-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
If you accept the North Vietnamese claim that they were the legitimate government, and they had a good claim to be so, then they were entirely justified in their efforts. The claim for the US to intervene was somewhat thinner, largely being based on ideological grounds, but was still generally considered as legitimate. They recognised the South Vietnamese as being the legitimate government and the Vietcong as insurgents.
In the end, the war happened because there were two sides with legitimate claims upon the same territory who were ultimately not prepared to compromise.
In the end, the war happened because there were two sides with legitimate claims upon the same territory who were ultimately not prepared to compromise.
Similar situation to Korea. A provisional line of demarcation determined by foreign powers and a split country propped up by competing interests. Was the communist backed North correct in invading and seeking unification in either case? Very different countries of course, but roughly similar scenarios.
Let's not forget that both times they were preceded by massive waves of refugees fleeing from communist control. That seems like the clearest sort of referendum on the legitimacy of unification. What exactly made this "their land" and "their people", could anyone effectively make that claim? Certainly not the ones setting out to settle the question purely by force of arms.
Let's not forget that both times they were preceded by massive waves of refugees fleeing from communist control. That seems like the clearest sort of referendum on the legitimacy of unification. What exactly made this "their land" and "their people", could anyone effectively make that claim? Certainly not the ones setting out to settle the question purely by force of arms.
The situation was not similar to Korea.
In Korea, the South and the North were popped up at the same time by foreign armies. Meanwhile, in Vietnam, the North has been the sole legitimate government of entire Vietnam since 1945.
Actually, the peace treaty specified that a vote of unification was to be held in the entire country.
Deriving it's legitimacy from, in one part, being the sole indigenous military power to oust both foreign invaders (Japan, France), and it part from doing this with the agreement of the population.
Force of arms and superior organization certainly gave them the capacity to impose their will. That's hardly the same thing as legitimacy or some kind of moral justification as put forth by the OP.
And the agreement of the population at any stage of this process is hard to pin down. The victory of the north required the elimination of a large part of that population and the continuation of the southern regime tallied its own high body count. Myself I'd take a more favorable view of whichever side didn't set out to settle the borders by force.
The North Vietnamese government is generally accepted as having significant and broad based support based on 3 factors: nationalism; as the force that ejected the Japanese, French and perceived attempts to reimpose colonial administration by the US, land rights; the poor peasants who made up a large proportion of the population were highly supportive of the communists and finally tribal/sectarian/racism; with the rural Vietnamese population being pitted against the urban (often Chinese and/or Christian) population.
Between these factors it is clear that the North Vietnamese government was preferred over the American supported South Vietnamese government by a large majority.
Between these factors it is clear that the North Vietnamese government was preferred over the American supported South Vietnamese government by a large majority.
Everyone wants to back a winner.
Still seems like too high of a price to ask for some idea of nationalism. Having two Vietnamese countries at peace wouldn't have been the worst outcome.
Still seems like too high of a price to ask for some idea of nationalism. Having two Vietnamese countries at peace wouldn't have been the worst outcome.
It is of course impossible to know what things would be like if the stuff that happened didn't happen, but for what its worth my opinion on the outcome of the cold war division of nations runs as follows:
Germany (peaceful reuniting) > Vietnam (communist victory uniting the country after a war) > Korea (war with no resolution + threat of nuclear conflict)
Could have been worse, could have been better.
Germany (peaceful reuniting) > Vietnam (communist victory uniting the country after a war) > Korea (war with no resolution + threat of nuclear conflict)
Could have been worse, could have been better.
The transfer of power from the emperor. On August 30, Bao Dai, the last emperor of Vietnam handed over his kingship symbol, the royal sword and seal, to Vietminh and effectively crowned them as the new ruler of Vietnam.
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure that the people of South Korea prefer their situation to a communist victory. The Vietnamese communists didn’t turn out to be as bad as the Korean ones so it may not be a fair comparison though.
Well Vietnam have not done well under the communists as their economy tell, however if South Vietnam would have been any better overall is hard to tell.
South Korea only started to do well after it became a democracy, during the early years, up to Maybe early 70s its economy was not all that much better than North Korea.
Last edited by a moderator:
It wasn't just North Vietnam invading South Vietnam. Significant portion of South Vietnamese population were at war against their own government.
Like Germany, Korea, or even China (Beijing/Taipei), both sides claimed being the "true" country and the other one, a mere puppet backed by foreign powers. Every time the war broke out (fortunately to all of us, not in Germany), each side said they were "liberating" their brothers, not "conquering".
International law recognizes the right of a people to self-determination, with particular application in the area of anti-colonial liberation. The VietMinh was the instrument of the Vietnamese people in liberating themselves from the French and the Japanese. It got this position mainly through its staying power, holding on when other would-be liberators dropped out. Not an ideal procedure, to be sure, but the circumstances of creating an anti-colonial movement don't allow for the ideal.
South-Vietnam had no such legitimacy, having been set up as a French protectorate which only outlasted the colonizers because of support from another foreign power. Its appeal to anticommunism is no substitute for national liberation, neither under international law nor in the eyes of the Vietnamese people.
The remedy for the non-ideal process of an emerging liberation movement is open elections after the fact, in which the finally free people can choose their own government. The Geneva Accords between the departing French and the Vietminh provided for such elections but the South-Vietnamese cancelled them. This breaks the second most cardinal rule of international law, that pacta sunt servanda. On top of that, it turned a temporary administrative split into a long-lasting division that denied the Vietnamese people independence as a nation.
So yes, the government of Vietnam was justified in carrying through its liberation of the whole country. The colonial remnant in the South did not have such justification, nor could it legitimately invite a (second) foreign power to help it sabotage a national referendum.
(For those of you concerned about the oppresive nature of the Vietminh regime, I agree. It is, however, at least somewhat likely that elections would have moderated it while the second war of liberation against the US certainly aided the worst elements within the Vietminh. Also, this was not a concern under international law at the time, and only in a very limited way at present.)
South-Vietnam had no such legitimacy, having been set up as a French protectorate which only outlasted the colonizers because of support from another foreign power. Its appeal to anticommunism is no substitute for national liberation, neither under international law nor in the eyes of the Vietnamese people.
The remedy for the non-ideal process of an emerging liberation movement is open elections after the fact, in which the finally free people can choose their own government. The Geneva Accords between the departing French and the Vietminh provided for such elections but the South-Vietnamese cancelled them. This breaks the second most cardinal rule of international law, that pacta sunt servanda. On top of that, it turned a temporary administrative split into a long-lasting division that denied the Vietnamese people independence as a nation.
So yes, the government of Vietnam was justified in carrying through its liberation of the whole country. The colonial remnant in the South did not have such justification, nor could it legitimately invite a (second) foreign power to help it sabotage a national referendum.
(For those of you concerned about the oppresive nature of the Vietminh regime, I agree. It is, however, at least somewhat likely that elections would have moderated it while the second war of liberation against the US certainly aided the worst elements within the Vietminh. Also, this was not a concern under international law at the time, and only in a very limited way at present.)
First of all, Vietnam was devided in 1954 due to the Geneva-Conference which ended the first Indochina-War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Geneva_Conference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Geneva_Conference#Provisions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Vietnam_referendum,_1955
The French-backed State of Vietnam, led by former Emperor Bảo Đại, provisionally held control south of the 17th parallel. Hồ Chí Minh's Viet Minh held the north under the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, which Hồ Chí Minh had proclaimed in 1945. The agreements stated that nationwide elections were to be held in 1956 to unify the country under a common government.
It was clear to all that the Vietminh would probably win those elections planned for 1956. So, Diem had a "Referendum" in 1955 and tereafter formed the Republic of Vietnam.
The "Referendum" was a total fraud
Though published counts showed Diệm winning the election with 98.2% of the vote, the referendum was widely marred by electoral fraud. In the capital, Saigon, Diệm was credited with more than 600,000 votes, although only 450,000 people were on the electoral roll.[1][2] He accumulated tallies in excess of 90% of the registered voters, even in rural regions where opposition groups prevented voting.
But, North Vietnam had no territory to reclaim in the South, since it never had legal control over vietnamese territory South of the 17th parallel in the first Place.
The failure of reunification led to the creation of the National Liberation Front (better known as the Viet Cong) by Ho Chi Minh's government. They were closely aided by the Vietnam People's Army (VPA) of the North, also known as the North Vietnamese Army. The result was the Vietnam War.
So, the presence of NVA-troops on South vietnamese soil was not justified. The US presence, on the other hand, was justified since the South vietnamese goverment had invited the US forces ( same as with russian troops in Syria today).
The US presence was legal, the North Vietnamese presence illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Geneva_Conference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Geneva_Conference#Provisions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Vietnam_referendum,_1955
The French-backed State of Vietnam, led by former Emperor Bảo Đại, provisionally held control south of the 17th parallel. Hồ Chí Minh's Viet Minh held the north under the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, which Hồ Chí Minh had proclaimed in 1945. The agreements stated that nationwide elections were to be held in 1956 to unify the country under a common government.
It was clear to all that the Vietminh would probably win those elections planned for 1956. So, Diem had a "Referendum" in 1955 and tereafter formed the Republic of Vietnam.
The "Referendum" was a total fraud
Though published counts showed Diệm winning the election with 98.2% of the vote, the referendum was widely marred by electoral fraud. In the capital, Saigon, Diệm was credited with more than 600,000 votes, although only 450,000 people were on the electoral roll.[1][2] He accumulated tallies in excess of 90% of the registered voters, even in rural regions where opposition groups prevented voting.
But, North Vietnam had no territory to reclaim in the South, since it never had legal control over vietnamese territory South of the 17th parallel in the first Place.
The failure of reunification led to the creation of the National Liberation Front (better known as the Viet Cong) by Ho Chi Minh's government. They were closely aided by the Vietnam People's Army (VPA) of the North, also known as the North Vietnamese Army. The result was the Vietnam War.
So, the presence of NVA-troops on South vietnamese soil was not justified. The US presence, on the other hand, was justified since the South vietnamese goverment had invited the US forces ( same as with russian troops in Syria today).
The US presence was legal, the North Vietnamese presence illegal.
Sure. Some with no connection to the communists at all, others heavily supported by them. It's almost as if post-colonial countries are a complete mess and need a period of peace to sort themselves out. No reason this had to be done under one single state. A little time, a little peace and a lot of foreign economic aid might have been a better look than decades of grinding warfare.
As for referendums, given how the South carried out its "elections" and how the Viet Minh terrorized and eliminated their political opposition I wouldn't put much faith in it. The outflow of people fleeing the north to the south, and later the many that fled the fall of the south to live abroad, are a clearer sort of referendum. But I suppose they don't count for anything, the country belonged to Le Duan not them.
Last edited: