A followup to this ongoing thread.
From Wikipedia:
If the election had gone forward:
Would Ho and the Vietminh have won?
What would have been the results for Vietnam?
What would have been the effect on Southeast Asian politics in general? Would the “Domino Theory” have been borne out, the whole region going Communist?
How would all of the above affected the course of the Cold War?
My opinions:
Almost certainly. The communist northern half of the country outnumbered the southern half. And the southern half was divided into factions; communists, republicans, and monarchists.
Vietnam would have become a communist country, albeit one without the massive damage caused by the continued war. A close analog would probably be Cuba which became a communist country around the same period but wasn’t a battleground.
Probably not. A smarter American foreign policy could have turned Vietnam into an Asian Yugoslavia - communist but neutrally aligned.
It would have cost the Soviets one of the major propaganda points they used against the United States. And the Vietnam War damaged the American economy, its military forces, and its society overall - that damage would have been avoided.
On the downside, if the United States had stood aside while Vietnam turned communist it would have been seen as another China. If we hadn’t fought and lost the Vietnam War, nobody would accept that we would have. So people would claim that we should have fought and won there and the refusal to fight was a betrayal of the western world.
Almost certainly. The real question though is…would there have been a second election? I think not…YMMV.
I think Vietnam would have fallen apart eventually without the war to forge them together into what they are today. The struggle against a major world superpower, fighting said superpower to a standstill and eventually making it back down and leave had a rather profound effect on their national identity. Otherwise I see Vietnam becoming another North Korea without that struggle…just an entrenched and decaying communist train wreck waiting to collapse under it’s own weight.
I think the Domino Theory has pretty well been discounted by this time as flawed. Personally I think that in retrospect it would have actually accelerated the demise of communism to let Vietnam go communist and then fail miserably. It would have also saved the US billions of dollars and about 50k in deaths (as well as millions of Vietnamese).
It would have been a short term propaganda and political victory for communism…but in the long term I think it would have accelerated the decay in the supposed communist monolith. Communism was doomed…and I think, again in retrospect, that this would have accelerated that decline.
-XT
Except that the Vietnamese were previously fighting the french, the japanese, the french, the cambodians and the chinese et al in what to them must have seemed a thousand year struggle for independence or to defend that independence.
The final US attempt to invent a country and pretend it was defending it did nothing to forge an identity. Vietnam was always Vietnam and the vietnamese vietnamese whatever the colonisers and imperialists they were fighting at the time wanted to believe.
They were certainly doing that…but it wasn’t until they fought America that it really forged their national identity. Not saying those other conflicts were meaningless…but when they fought the US they were fighting one of the two world superpowers. By forcing the US out they were able to unify Vietnam as it hadn’t been unified before (at least not for a long time). It had a huge impact on their national identity.
I disagree. The communist northern half of Vietnam was as much a construct as the southern half (and it wasn’t the US that invented it). Vietnam’s identity was fragmented and fractured from repeated invasion and conquest and needed to be forged anew…which is precisely what the North did. Had the south won it would have been the same thing…the forging of a completely new identity.
-XT
Eh. The fact that we actually did fight the war and lose hasn’t stopped people from claiming that we could have continued to fight and eventually won there, and that the refusal to continue expending blood and treasure was a betrayal of American greatness, or some such nonsense.
In other words, the idea that political rhetoric surrounding Vietnam would’ve gotten stupid is ignoring the fact that in actuality the political rhetoric surrounding Vietnam is stupid.
I think the general consensus is that we gave it our best shot but failed. There is a minority of people who believe that we could have won in Vietnam but even they can’t say we didn’t fight. If no effort had been made, there might have been a much greater outcry.
Or, alternately, there might not. The American connection with Vietnam was a result of the war; Southeast Asia wasn’t really a hot topic in America beforehand. So the fact that Vietnam went communist might have been a non-issue in American politics - nobody cried betrayal when we “lost” Ethiopia to communism, for example.
:dubious: North Vietnam was not a “construct” the way South Vietnam was. No foreign power set it up. The Viet Minh was a homegrown Vietnamese national liberation movement. For purposes of legitimacy, that makes all the difference.
You seriously need to read your own cite BG. Of course it was a construct:
Yes, the Viet Minh were ‘home grown’…and initially funded and supported by the US and China. Yes, they continued to fight the French (who could blame them?), but again they were only able to do so due to the support of China. The original plans for Vietnam were a construct of the occupying powers and essentially a compromise…just like those in Eastern Europe. One could make similar cases for East Germany or the countries of the Warsaw pact as being ‘home grown’.
The point is that communist Vietnam was not a natural progression of the historical Vietnam…which is the point I was making concerning Tagos point.
-XT
:dubious: You really need to think that over. The situations were not similar at all.
Continued use of the “dubious” smiley does not actually make your arguments more convincing.
In time the North Vietnamese government proved to be more a reflection of the will of the Vietnamese people than what the South Vietnamese government became (purely a puppet state) but it’s silly to assert that it wasn’t, initially, heavily constructed by the influence of Communist powers. Why would they NOT have taken such an opportunity?
The Communist governments of Eastern Europe were imposed at gunpoint by Stalin with the indigenous Communists playing the role of useful puppets. China never at any point exercised that degree of control in Vietnam. They never exercised even as much control as the Soviets over Castro. NV was always completely independent. (It accepted Soviet aid, but on its own terms.)
I think BrainGlutton does have a point. The communist governments in Eastern Europe were essentially imposed upon those countries by the Soviet Union (with the exception of Yugoslavia). Vietnam was more akin to Cuba or China; there was a genuine indigenous communist movement that had a lot of popular support. Obviously, the Soviet Union and other communist countries supported these local communist movements but they hadn’t created them.
There were native communist movements in the Eastern block countries too…that was the excuse the Soviets used to invade several of them in fact (or I suppose re-invade them). There were even native communist movements in WESTERN European nations.
Vietnam was still a post-war construct. It was so screwed up BECAUSE it was a post-war construct in fact…it was essentially a compromise situation as the various powers dismantled the Japanese empire. In a similar (though not exactly equal) way that Eastern and Western Europe were constructs in the post-war era (I’m sure any French 'dopers heads just exploded).
-XT
Sure, there were communist movements in Eastern Europe. But realistically none of them was ever going to take power on their own. The only way they were able to take power was by riding in on the back of a Soviet tank. The result was that the communist regimes in these countries were seen as the puppets of a foreign power. Ho, Mao, Tito, and Castro may have used Soviet help but they didn’t rely on it - each of them had genuine support in their own country and took power with outside help not because of it.
I’m unconvinced that Ho would have ultimately won out without A) The help of the Soviets/Chinese and B) Without the series of fuckups, gaffs and blunders by the French in trying to hold on to/recapture their lost colonial glory, and C) The US also screwing the pooch (recall, we actually SUPPORTED Ho and the Viet Minh during the war with Japan and we actually had fairly close ties to them) and by providing a unifying threat/enemy/whatever.
It gave them something to struggle against and provided them with the steel to forge their nation. The cold war gave them the tools as they were being used as a proxy agent against the US by the Soviets/Chinese. Without all that I don’t think Ho and his merry men would have unified Vietnam in the same way…if at all.
YMMV…but I still don’t see how the Viet Minh and Ho were a progression tieing them back to historical Vietnam…which was the point I was originally speaking to in all this.
-XT
In 1956 the Viet Minh had popular support because they had been a major faction in successfully fighting the Japanese and the French. If there had been a legitimate election in 1956 they probably would have gotten the majority of votes. If no outside powers were involved they most likely could have beaten any other Vietnamese faction. Admittedly, going on to defy the United States greatly enhanced their image.
Cite? I thought the only excuse given or needed was that those countries were under Nazi occupation.
Czechoslovakia. Here’s the description of the Communist coup, after which, the Czech Communists “invited” Soviet troops in.
There was also a Communist coup in Hungary in 1947, backed by the Soviets.
I don’t have time for cites today but I’m sure someone will be along with several at some point. I’m not sure what time period you are asking for a cite on here in any case. Certainly during WWII the Soviets invaded Eastern Europe because the Germans occupied that territory. Post WWII however there were some fairly large communist movements in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, etc…and the Soviets used those movements as puppets and later as excuses to crush counter revolutionary movements (like in Hungary in 1956) or simply to establish tighter controls.
-XT