In the Vietnam War, was North Vietnam justified to wage war to reclaim their territory in the South?

[Barsoom]

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.

You've got it exactly the wrong way round.

There was only one Vietnam. This was true before the war of liberation against the French and it did not change due to the Geneva Accords, which only provided for a temporary administrative division, not a separation into two sovereign states. Crossing internal administrative lines is not an invasion. Especially not when the Vietminh only crossed after the other side broke the agreement that created the administrative line in the first place.

The South-Vietnamese regime that broke the agreement was not the government of a sovereign state but only one party in a civil war they could have avoided entirely by sticking to the agreement. A rebel group has no right to invite in a foreign power.

The best argument against the Vietminh is that it, too, was only a party in a civil war. It had, after all, not been recognized by the departing French or most of the international community. That would mean that neither party held sovereignty and neither had legal right to invite foreign participants. However, unlike the RoV, it could credibly claim the mantle of national liberation movement in light of its achievements against the French and Japanese. Moreover, the Vietminh did not abrogate the Geneva Accords, instead it reacted to the other side putting into place a policy that entailed a permanent rupture of the nation.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

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.

No. If you're going to talk legal, then there was always only one country, not two. You had two rival governments and a ceasefire line.

In 1954, the Viet Minh were in control of almost all of Vietnam, north & south, save for the enclaves around Saigon & Hanoi. A decade prior, they had conducted a national election in 1946, north and south, which they won handily. They never were, nor ever saw themselves, as the government of only the North.

By the Geneva Accords they temporarily withdrew their troops north of the ceasefire line in return for a promised election in two years for a national government for the whole. That is only the troops. Viet Minh party organizers were to be allowed to continue in the south, to canvas and campaign for the projected election. The Geneva Accords never asserted a territorial partition, but only a temporary two-year ceasefire around a line.

If the ceasefire terms are not met, then you return to the status quo ante of belligerence.

 

[mork77]

"There was only one Vietnam"
geographically speaking, yes. but there were two states that existed. Both were recognized internationally. Therefore, the Republic of Vietnam was not a rebel Power, but an internationally recognized state. And a state of course has the right to ally with another Power.

"The best argument against the Vietminh is that it, too, was only a party in a civil war. It had, after all, not been recognized by the departing French or most of the international community. That would mean that neither party held sovereignty and neither had legal right to invite foreign participants"
-> Exactly. Although it was recognized as the government of Vietnam by diverse Eastern block countries in the 1950s, same as the Republic of Vietnam by diverse Western Block Countries. So, both parties could claim the sovereignty for all of Vietnam.

by the way, the state of Vietnam was founded in 1949 and internationally recognised in 1950. Two Vietnams, not just one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Vietnam

The North could have chosen the way of Conference or Court to solve the situation after the referendum in 1956 did not take Place. Le Duan chose the military road.
From that Point on, the legal situation no longer really mattered. It became a question of military Power.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

"There was only one Vietnam"
geographically speaking, yes. but there were two states that existed. Both were recognized internationally. Therefore, the Republic of Vietnam was not a rebel Power, but an internationally recognized state. And a state of course has the right to ally with another Power.

Nope it wasn't. The Geneva Accords recognized only one state. There was no international recognition of separate states, just recognition of governments.

They did not have the right to ally - that was explicitly written into the accords. That's why (South) Vietnam was never an official member of SEATO. Nor the UN.

by the way, the state of Vietnam was founded in 1949 and internationally recognised in 1950. Two Vietnams, not just one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Vietnam

No. The "State of Vietnam" was recognized by France in 1949 explicitly as encompassing all Vietnam (the three former Indochina provinces of Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina).

And it was not even recognized as sovereign but only as a French protectorate in 1949 (i.e. military & foreign affairs under French control). France only granted Vietnam sovereignty in 1954.

 

[mork77]

"Nope it wasn't. The Geneva Accords recognized only one state. There was no international recognition of separate states, just recognition of governments.
They did not have the right to ally"
-> The Geneva Convention was signed neither by the USA or the State of Vietnam. So, actually, they did not need to follow the text.

"That's why (South) Vietnam was never an official member of SEATO. Nor the UN."
-> Neither was North Vietnam with regard to the UN. Vietnam became a member in 1977. So, that does not prove anything.

 

[ChildOfDragon]

First of all, Vietnam was devided in 1954 due to the Geneva-Conference which ended the first Indochina-War

I am sorry, but this is fail, so the rest of your comment doesn't matter anymore.

There was no division of Vietnam by the Geneva at all. The accords didn't mention anything about the creation of any kind of South Vietnamese government nor say anything about the abandonment of territorial claim from North Vietnam over the southern land.

 

[mork77]

"There was no division of Vietnam by the Geneva at all."
-> No? no military division either? fail!

"The accords didn't mention anything about the creation of any kind of South Vietnamese government"
-> That already existed in 1949. fail!

"say anything about the abandonment of territorial claim from North Vietnam over the southern land."
The North never owned the land. officially, all of Indochina belonged to France as part of French Indochina. The Vietminh occupied territory, yes. But officially, both Vietnams became independant in 1954. . So, fail again!

maybe you should read my post after all.

 

[ChildOfDragon]

"There was no division of Vietnam by the Geneva at all."
-> No? no military division either? fail!

"The accords didn't mention anything about the creation of any kind of South Vietnamese government"
-> That already existed in 1949. fail!

"say anything about the abandonment of territorial claim from North Vietnam over the southern land."
The North never owned the land. officially, all of Indochina belonged to France as part of French Indochina. The Vietminh occupied territory, yes. But officially, both Vietnams became independant in 1954. . So, fail again!

maybe you should read my post after all.

1. Yes, a military division between Vietminh and FRANCE, not South Vietnam. After France's withdrawal in 1956, that division would have ceased to exist.

2. Officially, North Vietnam in 1945 has unilaterally aborted all treaties that used to put Vietnam under French domination. Therefore, the presence of the French after 1945 was illegal as well.

3. As the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was established and had held the sovereignty of Vietnam since 1945, the creation of the State of Vietnam in 1949 was illegal, not to mention that it was a puppet state created by the French.

 

[Barsoom]

The North never owned the land. officially, all of Indochina belonged to France as part of French Indochina. The Vietminh occupied territory, yes. But officially, both Vietnams became independant in 1954.

French ownership of Vietnam ceased to have a legal basis with the recognition of the right of a people to self-determination. This right gained increasing support during the second half of the 19th century, finally finding full legal expression in the UN Charter of 1945. As there is no one who doubts that the Vietnamese are a people, their right to sovereignty overrules French claims, which anyway were increasingly formulated as temporary measures to ensure an orderly transfer of control to the Vietnamese. In order to muddle the issue, the French set up a puppet administration to dispute the Vietminh's status as national liberators, but they did not dare to propose cutting Vietnam into separate states. As Abdul Goatherd rightly said, this resulted in two governments claiming authority over one, undivided state. One of these, however flawed, was the product of a national liberation movement, the other was a deliberate fraud.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

-> The Geneva Convention was signed neither by the USA or the State of Vietnam. So, actually, they did not need to follow the text.

That doesn't make it two states.

The accord was signed between France and (DR) Vietnam - the two belligerents. For which let me emphasize:

"The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to VietNam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." (Geneva accord: pdf ).

Besides Vietnam and France, it was signed by the UK, China and the USSR, with Canada, India and Poland to stand as monitors of the ceasefire. So there goes your "international recognition".

It is true the US did not sign it (to avoid Eisenhower being blamed for "losing Indochina") but the US did "make note" of it and pledged not to disturb the accord. As did the "State of Vietnam".

And in their "make note" part, the following might be also pertinent:

"no military base under the control of a foreign State may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties, the latter having the obligation to see that the zones allotted to them shall not constitute part of any military alliance and shall not be utilized for the resumption of hostilities or in the service of an aggressive policy."

Of course, Diem did renege the accord when he took power in 1956 on the "non-signatory" excuse. And Eisenhower did change his mind (in 1959) and committed to maintaining South Vietnam as a "separate entity". But the law is not on their side.

As to DR Vietnam, it offered repeatedly for elections and conferences, long before any resumption of military activity. Diem rejected them all outright.

In the eyes of DR Vietnam (and international law), Diem was simply a rebel leader militarily controlling a portion of Vietnam vacated by the French army. It never recognized French authority in that territory (just military ceasefire line), much less any self-proclaimed "State of Vietnam" that claimed to inherit it.

-> Neither was North Vietnam with regard to the UN. Vietnam became a member in 1977. So, that does not prove anything.

Vietnam wouldn't be included in the UN before unification.

SEATO, however, was a US-led treaty. Despite being devised around US interests in Vietnam, South Vietnam itself couldn't be a party to it. It could not make international alliances.