Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
South Vietnam: social support and identity
- Thread starter Frank81
- Start date
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
No, because that only happened a long way after the war started, and specifically after the two sides were tired of waging the war and were conducting the Paris Peace Accords.
My initial argument was in response to your post #9 when you were explaining "the reasons" (more like an analogy of the origins) why the Vietnamese war started. You said that the war was caused by a foreign state invading and being aggressive to another one.
In the late 1950s, when the war started, there was no foreign country invading or coercing the other. They were the same country who were just temporarily separated. Only during the last years of the "American War" both sides were starting to consider that their division would be permanent.
That's not a contradiction, those are different periods I'm talking about.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
I want to know the strategy North Vietnam applied to win the war. Why is that cognitive dissonance?
We have plenty of other threads around this forum explaining why Germany lost WWII, while at the same time we have other threads explaining how the Soviet Union was capable of winning the war against Germany.
If we do that relating to WWII, why we cannot do that relating to the Vietnam War? If that is cognitive dissonance, then we have to assume that a lot of what is discussed on this forum is also "cognitive dissonance" as well...
Joined Jul 2020
2,248 Posts | 961+
Ireland
Last edited:
They were wheeling and dealing well before 1980
. Maybe America should never have introduced Capitalism to these peoples in the far east, because they are getting damn good at it, even better than them lol. It make take another while to see who has actually won this war
Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
I’m saying it’s part of the same discussion. I don’t see how you can talk about one side in any given conflict and never mention the other. The North didn’t win a a war in a vacuum.
Joined Dec 2015
9,459 Posts | 1,223+
As far as the mind can reach
The documentary seriesVietnam War by Ken Burns and Lynn Norick is considered a classic and masterpiece.
American involvements in Vietnam began in the 1950s after France quited in Vietnam.
This contains the details about French casualties from 1945-1954:
cherrieswriter.com
In this sense, what might happen if the USA did not fight Vietnam War?
American involvements in Vietnam began in the 1950s after France quited in Vietnam.
This contains the details about French casualties from 1945-1954:
What was the French death toll in their Vietnam War?
I found this article interesting and thought to share these facts with you. It is also information that I never considered and if asked could not respond. So here are the facts about French losses …
cherrieswriter.com
In this sense, what might happen if the USA did not fight Vietnam War?
Joined Jul 2020
2,248 Posts | 961+
Ireland
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
I'm not talking about de facto, I'm talking about de jure. The southern confederacy was also a de facto independent country and that doesn't make it a totally legitimate country, neither most Americans do not describe the southern confederacy as a "country".
And no, I'm neither being erratic, distracting, or resorting to semantics. I'm just explaining why your assertion that the war was between "two separate countries" is wrong. This is not Iraq invading Kuwait.
This is a temporarily separated country that couldn't resolve its divisive, and internal, political issues. It's a very simple argument I'm making, and you just have to either understand that point or deny it. Don't come at me claiming that I'm being erratic or distracting.
Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
Again, cognitive dissonance.
“The war wasn’t being fought by two separate countries.”
Then
“They were de facto separate countries.”
If you’re going to continue this way then conversation between us will not be fruitful.
Joined Jul 2020
2,248 Posts | 961+
Ireland
.North Vietnam won the war because it could outlast the US and it's allies and received massive assistance from it's allies such has three to four hundred thousand Chinese troops who served in North Vietnam from 1965 to 1969 as anti aircraft and engineering troops. North Korea sent two air regiments to engage the the USAF. The Soviets sent massive amounts of aid and officers and technicians to support the anti aircraft missile defense system. Cuba sent advisors to interogate and torture US pilot's. There are a few accounts of Soviet pilots flying Migs to shoot down American aircraft with North Vietnamese insignia.
North Vietnam definitely got an assist from America's racial divide in the US military plus drug use.
In addition there arose opposition to the Vietnam War in Australia ,New Zealand and South Korea.
Leftyhunter
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
You are not reading my arguments. You are making more of an effort to find a "fallacy" in my speech and then use it to disapprove me, instead of actually reading what I'm writing. I said they were de facto, but not de jure. What makes a country entirely sovereign is its de facto and de jure independence.
I even made an analogy with the southern confederacy, and you didn't even get that point.
Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
No, I “got,” it, but again it was kinda idiosyncratic and not really helpful or relevant.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
For people that somehow cannot understand this very basic point:
- Sovereignty is the exercise of power by a State. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so while de facto sovereignty refers to the factual ability to doing so.
A polity that has one, but lacks the other, cannot be a fully sovereign entity.
So we can now agree on these terms.
- Sovereignty is the exercise of power by a State. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so while de facto sovereignty refers to the factual ability to doing so.
A polity that has one, but lacks the other, cannot be a fully sovereign entity.
So we can now agree on these terms.
Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
It is relevant, in the sense that in the view of the leaders of Vietnam, there was no foreign aggression towards southern Vietnam at the beginning of the civil war. Even the military junta at the time ruling South Vietnam didn't view it as such. They viewed it as "communist infiltration" but not exactly a foreign invasion from one independent country to another one.
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
I certainly don't support personal attacks by any member but South Vietnam was quite different from the Confedracy because it was formally recognized by many nations who had embassies in Saigon and some nations sent troops and advisors to South Vietnam.
So South Vietnam from 1954 to 1975 was a de jure nation. I do agree that President Eisenhower would of prevented a tremendous tragedy if he allowed UN supervised elections by 1956 to see if the Vietnamese people wanted to live in a united nation.
Leftyhunter
Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-